Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

INDIA (FAMILY PENSION FUNDS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (MR. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) (Amendment) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION BILL

ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

"Board of Trade Journal" (Advertisements)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the "Board of Trade Journal" is given to advertisements.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Advertisements occupy about 30 per cent. of the total space in the "Board of Trade Journal."

Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the information which he has given, does not the President of the Board of Trade think that the amount of space is excessive in these days of shortage of newsprint?

Mr. Wilson: In the selection of advertisements we pay very close attention to those which are directed towards encouraging exports from this country.

Mr. William Shepherd: Do the publications of the Board of Trade come under the same regulations as apply to ordinary newspapers and magazines?

Mr. Wilson: There are no regulations in force about this matter. The last of them was removed in August, 1946.

Leather Supplies

Mr. Attewell: asked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for the short supply of suitable leather for manufacture into footwear for the export market; to what extent he estimates that hides of the quality required are available in the world's markets but lost to this country because open licence to buy is not granted and bulk buying is not a suitable method of buying in competition with buyers of other countries.

Mr. H. Wilson: I do not consider that the supplies of suitable leather available for footwear for export are inadequate. Imports of hides and skins generally are limited for currency and supply reasons and not by the method of procurement

Footwear (Stocks)

Mr. Attewell: asked the President of the Board of Trade why stocks of shoes are accumulating in the hands of the factors and retailers; if he is aware that in consequence of these stocks boot and shoe operatives are working short time and the public are without the shoes; and if he will take steps either to reduce the price of shoes or lower their coupon value.

Mr. Hollis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present abundant supply of boots and shoes, he will reduce the coupon-requirements for them.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 20th April. I am now going into the whole question, but of course it would be unwise to take any steps to speed the dispersal of distributors' stocks until we can see whether the future level of raw material imports will enable the present high rate of footwear production to be maintained.

Mr. Attewell: Does the President of the Board of Trade appreciate that the trade is particularly disturbed at the lack of policy in his Department, and that the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) does not answer the question I asked him?

Mr. Wilson: There is no lack of policy in this matter. I am well aware of the views of the trade.

Mr. Osborne: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that retailers who have large stocks are not giving out orders to manufacturers and that there is a danger of grave unemployment? Will he look at it from that point of view?

Mr. Wilson: I have said I am looking into it very urgently, but we have to bear in mind the possibility of getting replacements of raw materials.

Mr. John Hynd: Has the answer of the President of the Board of Trade reference only to footwear or does it apply to other stocks like textiles?

Mr. Wilson: This Question and the answer refer only to footwear.

Mr. Attewell: Would the President of the Board of Trade be good enough to let us know when we might address further Questions to him to ascertain his policy?

Mr. Wilson: As quickly as possible.

European Recovery Programme

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are conditions attached to the import of any American goods into this country under the European Recovery Programme which would preclude their use for the purpose of carrying on commercial exchanges with the U.S.S.R.

Mr. H. Wilson: The problem of what effect, if any, the provisions of the Economic Co-operation Act might have on trade between countries participating in the European Recovery Programme and non-participating European countries is one which will need clarification in discussions with the United States authorities concerned.

Business Premises (Tenancies)

Mr. J. L. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will exercise requisitioning powers for the protection of tenants threatened with eviction, under buy-or-quit notices, from offices and workshops used for the production or distribution of supplies or services essential to the well-being of the community.

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to requisition offices and small business premises in Scotland in cases where a notice to buy or quit his premises has been served on a tenant.

Mr. H. Wilson: I can only requisition offices or business premises if I am satisfied that such a step is necessary or expedient for any of the purposes specified in the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947. A number of cases have been reported of the kind to which my hon. Friends refer, and I am having inquiries made to see in which cases, if any, the use of the requisitioning powers would be justified.

Mr. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the people who are engaged in the export drive depend to an appreciable extent upon the work of these small workshops?

Mr. Wilson: The export drive is one of the purposes specified in those Acts, so that matter will be borne in mind.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken action to requisition shops where necessary, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it will be a serious injustice if he does not take similar action with regard to offices and small business premises, and make that intention public?

Mr. Wilson: The publicity given to this answer will be sufficient for that purpose. I can act in these matters only where the purposes of those Acts are affected.

Children's Clothing

Captain John Crowder: asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is his intention to revoke Statutory Instrument No. 698 of 1948 since the announcement that Purchase Tax will not now be charged on children's clothing.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am considering afraid, be deferred, since it does not meet whether this instrument should now be either of these requirements. revoked.

Captain Crowder: Does it not say clearly in the explanatory note that the principal order only applied if these clothes were exempt from Purchase Tax as children's wear?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, and I am considering whether this order can be revoked.

Inventions (Patent Rights)

Colonel Wheatley: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes in the near future to introduce legislation with a view to reducing the cost of taking out patent rights.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. The Swan Committee on the Patents and Designs Acts considered this matter and recommended no change in the present scheme.

Colonel Wheatley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many very useful inventions are lost to the public because of the cost to the inventor of taking out patent rights?

Mr. Wilson: I shall have to consider all questions about patent legislation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware that I have already taken steps to secure the better exploitation of inventions.

Light Industries, West Cornwall

Commander Agnew: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage the establishment of further light industries in West Cornwall; and, in particular, the proposal of Messrs. L. and C. Hardtmuth, Limited, to start a pencil lead factory at Hayle.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the war 20 new projects covering a wide field of light industry have been established, in three cases by the allocation to firms of surplus Government premises. The Government's decision to reduce the volume of capital investment makes it impossible for the time being to permit further factory building except in those cases in which an early and substantial contribution can be made to the export trade or to import saving. The proposal of L. and C. Hardtmuth, Ltd., referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, must, for the present, I am
afraid, be deferred, since it does not meet either of these requirements.

Commander Agnew: Is the Minister aware that so soon as material is available for carrying out this project the products of the factory which will have been erected would be available to help our export trade, as well as to give employment to some 200 people in a district which badly needs employment?

Mr. Wilson: Those are matters which are very much in our minds, but I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are many more cases of greater urgency which should take the available resources for the time being.

U.K. Delegation, Spain

Mr. George Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade for what purpose an economic and financial mission has recently been sent to Spain.

Mr. H. Wilson: The purpose of the discussions now taking place in Madrid between a delegation from the United Kingdom and the Spanish authorities is to review the Monetary Agreement of 28th March, 1947, as provided under Article 9, and to discuss the course of trade and payments between Spain and the United Kingdom during the forthcoming 12 months.

Mr. Jeger: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear to the delegation that they are to explain to the representatives of the Franco Fascist Government that this country would view with alarm any extension of trade with that country, in accordance with the resolutions passed at the United Nations in March, 1946?

Clothing Stocks

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take, in view of the accumulation in the hands of wholesalers and retailers of boots and shoes, underwear and shirts, etc., by reducing the coupon value of the items in excessive supply or by issuing additional clothing coupons, to make the excessive stocks now held available to the public before they deteriorate in value due to change of fashions or damage through storage for an unduly long period.

Mr. H. Wilson: Stocks of clothing and footwear are better than last year but then they were in many cases abnormally low, and we have to keep in mind the reduction of supplies that must be expected later this year in many types of goods owing to the export drive. I am, however, watching the position.

Mr. Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration any representations that might be made to him by the trade, so that the matter will be given his special attention at the present time?

Mr. Wilson: I receive quite a number of representations and they are being taken into account very urgently in connection with the review which I have already mentioned in regard to footwear supplies.

Mr. Beswick: Will my right hon. Friend also take into account the fact, so far as clothing is concerned, that the return furnished to him of stocks does not include a large stock of goods in this country nominally sold to retailers, but held up pending the deposit of coupons by customers?

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that large stocks of clothes, especially women's clothes, have accumulated which are not likely to be acceptable for export?

Mr. Wilson: There are some, but we have to bear in mind that owing to the diversion to export there will be fewer goods coming into the shops from the home mills later in the year.

Mr. George Porter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reference made in the Question to other goods includes waterproofed and rubberised goods, and that because of the accumulation in the shops of these goods there is considerable unemployment in the industry?

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is it the Government's policy to keep rationing on in plenty as well as during scarcity?

Mr. Wilson: No, nothing of the kind, and if the present building up of stocks were something we could hope to be permanent and lasting we should adjust the coupons to meet the situation. We have to bear in mind, however, the low rate of supplies coming from the mills, because of diversion to export.

Film Studios (U.S.A. Companies)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the President of the Board of Trade which film companies with parent organisations in the U.S.A. at present own, or have on lease, film studios in the United Kingdom; and how many first feature films did each of these film companies make in the United Kingdom during the years 1938, 1946 and 1947, respectively.

Mr. H. Wilson: The subsidiaries of American film companies who at present own studios in the United Kingdom are M.G.M.-British Studios Ltd., Warner Brothers-First National Productions Ltd., and Twentieth-Century-Fox Film Co., Ltd. The studios owned by the last mentioned company could not be used for feature production without extensive rehabilitation. The only films of first feature standard produced at these three companies' studios during the three years mentioned in the Question were one made in 1938 at Warner Bros.' studio and three made at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's in 1947. Other companies from time to time reserve studio space for producing individual pictures, but no other company at present occupies leased space on a more permanent basis.

Mr. William Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether machinery exists to prevent these companies from flooding our country? Has he powers to stop them using these studios if the products coming from them are unsuitable?

Mr. Wilson: No, I do not exercise any power of quality censorship in relation to film production, whether British or American.

Mr. Gallacher: Is this film control a one-way traffic, or are British companies allowed to control any film production in America?

Mr. Wilson: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Mr. Scollan: Is the Minister aware that on a previous occasion American companies deliberately produced junk and labelled it "British made picture" in order to discredit our film trade?

Mr. Wilson: If my hon. Friend is referring to the famous quota "quickie," I would remind him that the matter was


very fully debated and that steps were taken to deal with it in the recent passage of the Cinematograph Films Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Petroleum Board (Dissolution)

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has any statement to make as to the future of the Petroleum Pool Board.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): As was announced in the Press on 27th April, the Petroleum Board, which was a voluntary association formed for the purpose of the war by the companies distributing oil in the United Kingdom is being dissolved on 30th June this year. To provide liaison between the Government and the industry after the Petroleum Board has disbanded, the industry have, at my instance, set up representative bodies which will provide the Government with any information it may require, and will co-operate with the Government in safeguarding the national interest in all questions concerning oil operations in the United Kingdom. In the sphere of industrial relations, a joint conciliation committee is in being and is, I understand, functioning to the satisfaction of both sides of the industry. Arrangements have also been made by the oil companies, at my request, to ensure maximum economy in the use of manpower and transport; and also to defer the re-introduction of branded products for at least six months. I take this occasion to express the Government's appreciation of the great wartime services rendered by the petroleum industry and to thank all members and staff of the Petroleum Board fur the valuable work they have done.

Mr. Shepherd: While I agree with the usefulness of the Petroleum Board during the wartime period may I ask are we to take it that this answer means that the Government are convinced that the interests of the users and consumers will be better served by privately operated concerns than by this central organisation?

Mr. Gaitskell: As I have already explained, the Petroleum Board was a voluntary association, and it rests with the companies when it is dissolved. I am

satisfied that the arrangements made by the companies at my request will meet the hon. Gentleman's point.

Petrol Allowances

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the fact that holders of E and S coupons are not to receive the standard ration, he will authorise them to use their cars forthwith for all purposes.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir: persons at present receiving supplementary allowances will be able to draw the standard allowance and use it as from 1st June.

Mr. Maningham-Buller: As persons drawing the essential supplementary allowances after 1st June will not receive in total more than they are receiving now, is there any reason why they should be subjected to restrictions as to how they use their petrol between now and 1st June?

Mr. Gaitskell: I would not accept that those who are receiving supplementary allowances suffer hardship in general as a result of the new arrangements, but those who may suffer hardship are precisely the people who would gain nothing from the relaxation proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was asking whether, in view of the fact that these people will not receive more petrol in total after 1st June, the restrictions on the use of that total could now be relieved because no further use of petrol would be involved.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have already explained that those who are suffering hardship, if any, would not gain from any such relaxation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that no more petrol would be consumed as a result of such a concession and of the very great advantage it would be to people who are going on holiday during May and at Whitsun, will the Minister reconsider this matter?

Mr. Gaitskell: I have already answered the question and I must stick to the proposals which I have put forward and which I shall carry out.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Is not the petrol issued on S and E coupons for business,


and are not the people who are now complaining the ones who write and say that they have only enough petrol for their business purposes? How can they therefore use that petrol for their holidays?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is not this another psychological order under which all must suffer before any benefit?

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the leave petrol concession for members of His Majesty's Forces can be extended to cover other servants of the Crown on leave from overseas stations.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if the petrol concessions allowed to members of His Majesty's Forces returning to this country on leave are also available for Colonial civil servants and members of the Foreign Office similarly coming into this country on leave.

Mr. Gaitskell: It has been decided to reintroduce allowances to British civilians on leave in this country from abroad as from 1st June. The amount will be one-third of the level ruling before the allowance was withdrawn last year.

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what arrangements he proposes for the allocation of petrol during the next six months to sailing craft with auxiliary engines.

Mr. Gaitskell: A minimum allowance of approximately one-third the allowance granted last summer will be made available for these vessels, but the allowances of those already in receipt of an amount equal to or exceeding this minimum will not be increased.

Petrol Ration (Holidays)

Mr. Perrins: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that many workers in Birmingham who have accepted the advice of the Government and have staggered their annual holiday, will suffer by reason of the fact that in many cases their annual holiday is due to begin before 1st June, the date chosen for the re-introduction of the basic petrol ration; and, in these circumstances, if he will agree that coupons may be used before the commencing date and make arrangements for the issue of coupons to allow this to be done.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean) on 26th April.

Oil Refinery, Haifa

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if any oil is now being refined at Haifa; and how many tons he expects will be refined there for the remainder of this year.

Mr. Gaitskell: As stated by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 21st April, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), the Haifa refinery ceased work on 12th April. In present circumstances it is impossible to estimate what the output will be for the rest of this year.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman making his plans on the assumption that this oil refinery is being abandoned, and if so, what will be the effect on the general overall supply of oil to this country and other countries which were formerly dependent upon the Haifa Refinery?

Mr. Gaitskell: Naturally, the plans both of the British and foreign companies concerned have had to be adjusted to meet the new situation which has developed. I am not in a position to add anything further at the moment on the point about the precise effect of the closing of the refinery.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman assuming that this refinery is to be abandoned, and that no oil will come from it for the rest of this year?

Mr. Gaitskell: I have answered that question. I have said that the oil companies have had to adjust their plans to meet the new situation.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: What steps have been taken to protect this oil refinery, because quite clearly the company cannot do it?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is hardly a question to be addressed to me.

Power Station, Ham's Hall (Atmospheric Pollution)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware


of complaints arising from pollution of the atmosphere from Ham's Hall Power Station; how many complaints he has received from adjacent parishes on this subject; and if he will direct the British Electricity Authority to take immediate steps to stop this pollution.

Mr. Gaitskell: One complaint was received in December, 1945, from the Meridin Urban District Council. Pollution was then being caused by corrosion of the metal connection from the boilers to the chimneys. The replacement of this connection was begun as soon as material was available and I am informed that the work should be completed during the Whitsuntide weekend. Consequently the last part of the Question does not arise.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the Minister aware that this nuisance is particularly severe at the present time, and will he make representations to the British Electricity Authority that they should hasten the work as fast as possible?

Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Member will read my answer he will see that such representations are no longer necessary.

Gas Council Chairman (Allowances)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what moneys Mr. Sylvester, the Chairman of the Gas Council, will receive from the nationalised gas industry in addition to his salary already announced.

Mr. Gaitskell: The allowances payable under Clause 5 (6) of the Gas Bill have not yet been determined.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the fact that Mr. Sylvester will be receiving a pension of £3,500 from the gas industry, whether nationalised or not, in addition to his salary of £6,000, should not his salary be reduced by a corresponding amount, as otherwise it will total £9,500, and thus be in excess of that of the chairmen of all the other nationalised boards?

Mr. Gaitskell: Private arrangements regarding the incomes of individuals are not my concern. I am simply concerned with paying the rate for the job.

Mr. Erroll: As Mr. Sylvester's pension is coming out of the industry should it not have been taken into account?

Mr. Butcher: Are we to understand that the gas industry is of less importance than the electricity industry?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. The job is not the same as the job of the Chairman of the British Electricity Authority.

Overseas Visitors (Petrol Consumption)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister or Fuel and Power whether he will exclude motor fuel, supplied to overseas visitors, from his computations of consumption by private motor vehicles in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gaitskell: Account will be kept of the petrol coupons issued to foreign visitors and in estimating changes in consumption subsequent to the introduction of the standard ration, consumption by foreign visitors will be separately recorded.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Huts, Waltham (Supplies)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power on what grounds coal supplies to the ex-Service men's families now squatting in the Waltham, near Grimsby, R.A.F. huts, has recently been cancelled, and, since there is no alternative means of cooking, if he will restore the supply at once.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am advised that this former R.A.F. Camp has been partly taken over by the Rural District Council. The authorised tenants are registered for coal but supplies were withdrawn from four families who are living there without permission. I am instructing the local Fuel Overseer to allow supplies immediately.

Mr. Osborne: While I thank the Minister for that concession, may I ask him if he will look into the fact that the Ministry of Health withdrew their eviction order against these squatters and therefore allowed them to stay there? Was it not a great injustice, therefore, on the part of his officials to stop their coal supplies?

Mr. Gaitskell: The local fuel overseers, strictly speaking, are not officials of mine but of the local authority. I agree that a mistake was made, and I have taken steps to put it right.

Exports

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what quantities of coal and coke have been shipped during 1948 to date from each of the Scottish ports; and what percentages that total represents of the total U.K. exports for a similar period.

Mr. Gaitskell: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


SHIPMENTS OF COAL AND COKE FROM SCOTTISH PORTS DURING THE THREE MONTHS ENDED 3IST MARCH, 1948.



(Tons).


Port of Shipment.
Shipped as Cargo.
Shipped as Bunkers


Coal.
Coke.
Coal.


Aberdeen
—
—
50,091


Ardrossan
4,588
498
6,260


Ayr
14,596
—
611


Banff
—
—
434


Borrowstones
—
—
101


Burntisland
—
—
2,404


Dundee
—
—
1,940


Fraserburgh
—
—
444


Glasgow
43,533
1,838
57,603


Grangemouth
10,708
—
8,666


Granton
—
—
41,565


Greenock
—.
—
6,704


Inverness
—
—
521


Irvine
—
—
60


Kirkwall
—
—
5


Leith
403
—
27,084


Lerwick
—
—
207


Methil
112,216
—
18,969


Peterhead
—
—
1,097


Stornoway
—
—
2,670


Troon
—
—
325


Wick
—
—
87


Wigtown
3,646
—
—


Total from Scottish ports.
189,780
2,336
227,848


Total shipments from the United Kingdom during the same period.
1,050,170
4,968
1,213,473


Shipments from Scotland as percentage of total shipments.
18%
47%
19%

Colonel Hutchison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power who allocates the quantities and qualities of coal for export; and from what ports they are to be shipped.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Government decide the total availability of coal for export in the light of the probable output and the needs of the home market. The bulk of the exports is assigned to individual countries under inter-Governmental Trade Agreements. The Board then allocates the necessary tonnages between its Divisions and these allocations largely determine the port of shipment.

Colonel Hutchison: Do such other factors as the need to fill up space in otherwise empty ships enter into consideration as to what coal shall be shipped and from what port that coal shall be shipped?

Mr. Gaitskell: No doubt the National Coal Board and the exporters would take those points into account.

Colonel Hutchison: Is there any contact between the National Coal Board and such as the Ministry of Transport, who have a very direct interest in the other aspect of the same question?

Mr. Gaitskell: Full arrangements exist for consultation between the Board and the Ministry of Transport.

Small Mines (Operations)

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) what he proposes to do to avert the critical situation now arising in the small licensed coalmines, owing to their inability to dispose of their product; and is he aware that notably in North Staffordshire and South Wales notices ending employment are being served on miners;
(2) why the National Coal Board proposes to terminate the agreements by which it arranges for the marketing of coal raised from small licensed pits in the South Staffordshire, Cannock, Lancashire, Shropshire and Forest of Dean areas as from June, 1948.

Mr. Gaitskell: This is a matter between the National Coal Board and the licencees, but I am informed that the proposed termination of the present interim arrangements, of which six months' notice is necessary, is connected with the forthcoming revision of the coal price structure and its application to the coal produced by the licencees. I understand that the whole matter is to be discussed shortly between the Board and the licensees.

Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the coal produced by the small mines is the only coal produced in this country without subventions from the taxpayer; and that since nearly half the workers in small mines are in danger of unemployment, nearly 500,000 tons of coal a year will be lost? Further, surely action of a quicker nature can be taken in view of the fact that the Federation of Small Mines has been writing for an interview with the National Coal Board for over six weeks?

Mr. Gaitskell: No deep-mined coal is produced with subventions from the taxpayer but only opencast coal. The trouble is that this coal is of such poor quality that it cannot be sold in the ordinary local markets.

Colonel Clarke: Does the Minister remember that (luring the passage of the Coal Nationalisation Act his predecessor gave an assurance that there need be no apprehension about these small businesses so long as they complied with the general conditions laid down for the industry, and are we to understand that those assurances no longer hold good?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. The question is whether commercially these people can continue to carry on or not, but the whole matter is being discussed between the National Coal Board and the licensees.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is not the statement that no coal is produced at the expense of the taxpayer somewhat misleading, seeing that the taxpayer is already bearing heavy losses in the production of coal?

Mr. Gaitskell: The losses are not paid by the taxpayer.

Hon. Members: They are.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 176 of the workers at the small collieries have had notice to finish this weekend and that most of the men working in those collieries are receiving compensation and are no longer fit for deep mining work? If the owners cannot sell their coal to the factories, will the right hon. Gentleman allow the local domestic consumers to buy it in order to provide an occupation for these men who have no alternative source of employment?

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no question of preventing these people from selling their coal. The difficulty is to find a market for it.

Mr. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that much of this coal is definitely superior to that produced by opencast mining and that many small pits produce very high grade coal? Is he aware that the National Coal Board have refused export licences to certain small pits with the result that production has dropped from 3,500 tons a week to something like 1,800 tons a week in one area in Scotland.

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot accept the view that this coal is of the same quality as that which is apparently sold without difficulty. As regards the point about export licences, if the hon. Member will let me have details I will look into it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to a supplementary question, if the losses of the National Coal Board are not paid by the taxpayer, will he say by whom they are paid?

Mr. Speaker: That is outside the Question on the Order Paper.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I said that this is quite outside the particular Question on the Order Paper.

Commander Noble: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, if a Minister makes a statement in reply to a Question, is it not in Order to ask a supplementary question about that statement?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot range over the whole subject. We must stick to the Question more or less as it was put on the Order Paper.

Opencast Screening Plant

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when a screening plant for opencast coal installed by his Ministry at Chatterley near Tunstall in Staffordshire became operational; how many tons of opencast coal have since been screened; and what was the total cost of installation.

Mr. Gaitskell: The nearest opencast screening plant to Chatterley is at Diglake, four miles away, which started


operating in November, 1946, and has so far screened 145,000 tons of opencast coal. The cost of installation was £16, 800.

Domestic Supplies (Sub-Tenants)

Mr. Perrins: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now allow a separate allowance of coal to subtenants.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. As from 1st May separate registration will be permissible for all sub-tenant families consisting of two or more persons. Appropriate instructions are being issued to local fuel overseers.

Mr. Perrins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his very satisfactory answer will be warmly received by those who will benefit from it, and that it will remove a serious cause of friction between main and sub-tenants? Will he undertake to convey their thanks to the miners for the efforts they have made to make this allowance possible?

Mr. David Renton: Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members of this House have been pressing for this change for the last two and a half years? Could he explain the delay in coming to this obviously necessary conclusion?

Mr. Gaitskell: We could not afford the coal before.

Mr. Charles Williams: Is the Minister aware that with efficiency this could have been done at least a year ago?

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot agree.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Why is it that a single person who is a sub-tenant is not able to get this concession?

Mr. Gaitskell: We have to consider the needs of the export market, and, therefore, I cannot give unlimited quantities of coal to the home market. I do not think that hardship exists in the case of single sub-tenants. It is always possible for licences to be granted to enable them to obtain additional coal.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIFE SENTENCES

Mr. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of the recent decision of the House

on the death penalty, if he will introduce legislation radically to alter the period and conditions of the life sentence that is being imposed in place of capital punishment, to strengthen the deterrent effects of this much modified form of punishment, in view of the increasing acts of criminal violence.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): No amendment of the law would be required to effect such purposes as my hon. Friend appears to have in mind. Under the existing law a life sentence authorises the detention of a prisoner for the whole of his life, however long that period may be, and the conditions under which sentences are served can be regulated by rules under the Prison Act, 1898.

Mr. Harrison: Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend will have to amend his policy in dealing with convicted murderers, because it must be borne in mind, as I am sure he does bear in mind, that since the decision referred to in the Question was made by this House he has changed his policy towards convicted murderers?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not think I shall have to change any policy. Each case will be considered on its merits from time to time, as the sentence is being served.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me for asking whether his policy since that decision has been radically changed when dealing with convicted murderers? Those murderers are automatically reprieved from hanging.

Mr. Ede: The Question relates to what is to happen to a prisoner who is sentenced, either by the judge or by commutation, to imprisonment for life. The policy on that matter has not been changed, and each case will, as has been the case ever since imprisonment for life has been upon the Statute Book, be considered on its merits from time to time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Austin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the circumstances relating to the part-time employment of schoolchildren; whether he is satisfied that county and


local authorities are wisely administering provisions in force or if it is proposed to enact a national enforcement measure further to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the children concerned; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ede: The Children and Young Persons Acts restrict the employment of school children, and empower local authorities to make by-laws regulating these matters within the framework of the statute. My experience does not support the suggestion for depriving local authorities of the powers vested in them to make by-laws which require my confirmation.

Mr. Austin: In view of the fact that most local authorities are subject to pressure from Chambers of Commerce to retain the employment of young children for the purpose of delivering newspapers, etc., will not my right hon. Friend look into the question of amending the Children and Young Persons Acts with a view to putting an end to the pernicious practice of employing juveniles?

Mr. Ede: Chambers of Commerce are not the only people who exercise pressure on local authorities. The recent submission of new by-laws by local authorities shows me that other influences are equally pertinent.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE MANAGEMENT SCHEMES (COMMITTEES)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for he Home Department whether there is any consumers' advisory committee appointed in connection with the Carlisle State Management Schemes; who are the members; and how often do they meet.

Mr. Ede: As required by Section 16 (3) of the Licensing Act, 1921, local advisory committees have been established in each of the State Management Districts from the inception of the schemes. The members are appointed in the Carlisle District in England by the Home Secretary and in the Scottish Districts of Gretna and Cromarty Firth by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The membership is representative of the licensing justices, the municipal and county authorities and other local interests. The committees meet at quarterly intervals, or more frequently if occasion for consultation arises.

Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the urgent need for the appointment of consumers' advisory committees in relation to the private brewing industry, and if he makes such appointments, will he consider my acknowledged gifts in this direction to advise him upon it?

Mr. Ede: I should, of course, desire to know in regard to any applicant what his practical qualifications were.

Mr. Maclay: Could the Home Secretary state where the local committees meet and where their offices are?

Mr. Ede: Not without notice

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the names of these advisory committees in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Ede: I will consider whether the number of names would not be more than would justify publication. I will have a look at it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Are their names and addresses or the address of the office of the committee known to consumers in the area?

Mr. Ede: I should imagine so. They generally find enough work to do at their quarterly meetings.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Will the Home Secretary inquire if that is so?

Oral Answers to Questions — QUARTER SESSIONS (HOURS OF SITTING)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the normal hours during which trials at quarter sessions are held.

Mr. Ede: This is a matter for local arrangement, and practice may vary in different parts of the country. I understand that it is not unusual for a court to sit from 10.30 a.m. until 4.30 p.m., or later, if necessary.

Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recent trials of prisoners at Winchester Quarter Sessions have been proceeding from 10 a.m. to nearly 10 p.m., and will he make representations, to whoever are responsible for these late sittings, that it is not in the strict interests of justice?

Mr. Ede: I will inquire into that, and any other particular case that may be brought to my notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL PROCESSIONS, LONDON (PROHIBITION)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Sir Oswald Mosley intends to speak at an open-air rally of Fascists in Hackney on 1st May; and as this is calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, whether he intends to prohibit the gathering.

Mr. Ede: I have no power to prohibit the holding of any meeting. It will be the duty of the police to take such steps as are reasonable and necessary to preserve public order and to maintain the peace. Since, however, it has come to the notice of the police that the Union Movement proposes, after the meeting, to march in procession through parts of the East End of London, I have given my consent to the Commissioner of Police making an order under Section 3 (3) of the Public Order Act, 1936, prohibiting for a period of three months the holding of all public processions of a political character in the area specified in the Order. Full publicity is being given to the Order which will come into force at midnight tonight.

Mr. Hynd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he will say whether that Order will prohibit processions from assembling on the Embankment on Saturday, at the same time as the trade unions' demonstration, and marching to my constituency through the East End of London, and would he not extend the Public Order Act to prohibit the holding of this provocative demonstration in a district where there is a big Jewish population?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I have no power under the law to prohibit the holding of a meeting. I am informed that a procession was to be formed after the meeting to march through the East End of London. The Commissioner of Police made the necessary submission to me, and I have granted to him confirmation of an Order prohibiting all political processions, of whatever party, in that particular area during the next three months. Part of

the route suggested by the hon. Member will, in fact, be covered by the Order. It does not extend to the Embankment, but I want to make this quite clear, that if the Order did extend to the Embankment all processions on the Embankment would be prohibited.

Mr. Hynd: Although the Home Secretary cannot ban a meeting, will he, at any rate, ban Sir Oswald Mosley from speaking at this meeting, because obviously that will be provocation?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I have not the power to prohibit any person from speaking at a meeting, but if any person makes a provocative speech that brings him within the realm of the law my hon. Friend can rest assured that the necessary proceedings will be taken.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the unsatisfactory position created by the reply of the Home Secretary, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATURE CONSERVATION (REPORTS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now make a statement about the Reports on the Conservation of Nature in England and Wales, Command Paper 7122, and Scotland, Command Paper 7235, Part II.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Government have decided to accept in principle the recommendations of these two Reports calling for the establishment of a Nature Conservation Board and a Biological Service under the auspices of the Agricultural Research Council. The Board and the Service will cover Great Britain as a whole, but there will be a special committee supervising the Scottish Division of the Service on the lines recommended by the Scottish Wild Life Conservation Committee. Part of the facilities serving Great Britain as a whole will also be located in Scotland. I should make it clear that the Government are not necessarily committed to the scale of expenditure mentioned in these Reports and that it will in any case take some years before it is possible to work up to the full scale of operations envisaged in them.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Lord President say whether he will or who will answer Questions about the Nature Conservation Board and the Biological Service; and, secondly, would he say whether the Biological Service is to undertake biological research, or will that be left to the universities?.

Mr. Morrison: I think those Questions had better be put clown I would like to consider those points.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

German Traders (Currencies)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to assist merchants contemplating triangular transactions, he will state whether the Exchange Control regards Egyptian pounds as a more valuable foreign currency than Dutch guilders; and how these two currencies stand in relation to pounds sterling earned by Germans trading in the Anglo-American zone of Germany.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Egypt and Holland are both within the transferable account countries listed in Schedule Four of the Exchange Control (Payments) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O. 1947, No 2072). In respect of current transactions, sterling is freely transferable between accounts of transferable account countries. All sterling earned by bizonal trade with the sterling area is paid into the J.E.I.A. No. 1 Account at the Bank of England, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Revised Fusion Agreement. The balance on this Account in excess of £1,500,000 is adjusted quarterly in dollars, and is not convertible into either Egyptian pounds or Dutch guilders. Special permission is required for transfers between the accounts of transferable account countries and those of other countries outside the scheduled territories. The grant of such permission depends, amongst other things, upon the relative scarcity of the currencies, and, as this factor varies almost from day to day, merchants contemplating triangular transactions should approach their banks for current advice on these questions.

Mr. Erroll: Could the Minister cut out some of this red tape?

Rhodesian Tobacco (Machinery)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, to enable Southern Rhodesia to provide Britain with additional tobacco, and as Britain has saved recently £4,000,000 of dollar exchange by buying Rhodesian tobacco, he will consider giving Rhodesia some of that credit ear-marked for buying tobacco machinery in the United States, having regard to the fact that Machinery for tobacco growing is almost exclusively manufactured in the United States, and costs dollars.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am not aware of any approach on this matter from the Southern Rhodesian authorities. We are, of course, in full agreement as to the importance of the production of tobacco in that country.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a protest has been made, and no one seems to know out there whether it is possible to get the necessary dollar credits to buy this machinery? Surely we are going to do something for Empire production?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On the contrary, I have made very detailed inquiries and I understand that no approaches have been made.

Mr. De la Bère: Would the Financial Secretary make further inquiries, because I am afraid approaches have been made?

Purchase Tax

Mr. I. J. Pitman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost in a full year of exempting stationery from Purchase Tax.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: About £18 million.

Mr. Pitman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net annual cost of exempting stationery from Purchase Tax after deducting the increase in expenditure by central and local government due to the Purchase Tax on station cry so purchased and after deducting the decrease in revenue from Income Tax, Surtax and Profits Tax due to the Purchase Tax on stationery being chargeable against profits liable to such taxes.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This information is not available.

Mr. Pitman: Is the Financial Secretary aware that 96 per cent. of such stationery, by volume and by value, is sold to Government, or quasi-Government, bodies, and to firms who are bearing taxes of that nature, and the working out of an estimate is not particularly difficult?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. Gentleman knows the answer, I wonder why he put the Question down.

Mr. Pitman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost to the nation in a full year for collecting Purchase Tax on stationery, not only to His Majesty's Customs and Excise, but also to the manufacturers and suppliers of stationery who collect and pay it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This information is not available.

Commander Noble: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the increase to 100 per cent. in the Purchase Tax on gas water-heaters will not result in a greater proportionate consumption of solid fuel; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is hoped that the tax will deter the installation of appliances which make fresh demands on our limited gas supplies. There will be the opportunity for any statement that the House may require when the proposals in the Finance Bill are under discussion.

Commander Noble: Could the Minister say whether that view is shared by the Minister of Fuel and Power?

Mr. M. Lindsay: Will the Minister explain why these items are regarded as luxuries, since people have to have hot water, when refrigerators are taxed at only 33⅓ per cent.?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: These are matters that can be better discussed when we reach the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does that reply take into account the fact that gas is being produced from solid fuel in this country?

Economic Policy (Business Losses)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider paying compensation to firms who have suffered financial loss as the result of obeying

orders given by the Government in pursuance of their economic policy.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.

Economic Co-Operation (Agreements)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the acceptance of the Marshall Programme by His Majesty's Government is to be considered by the House.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Economic Cooperation Act, 1948, provides for bilateral agreements to be negotiated between the United States Government and the Governments of the participating countries. As already stated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, this Agreement when negotiated will not require ratification. It will, however, be laid before the House in the normal way.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend state why it does not require the ratification of the House?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Under the Rules, it does not require ratification; nevertheless, it will be laid, and it is not for me to say whether or not a Debate can be arranged.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Seeing that it is not going to be submitted to the House for ratification, can my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that no commitments of any character will be agreed to which will affect the economic position of Britain or of the British Commonwealth?

Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend say in what way the Marshall Plan is a bilateral agreement?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not think I said that. Under the Act to which I referred in my reply, it is provided that bilateral agreements have to be made between the participating countries and the United States.

Mr. Scollan: In that case, how can my right hon. Friend tell the House that it should not be brought before the House for ratification if it is going to be an agreement?

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made for the disposal of materials received through the Marshall Aid Plan; how will internal payments be


made; who will draw the money; and if profits will be allowed to be made on the materials or on products made from the materials.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No special arrangements are contemplated either for the disposal of E.R.P. material or for dealing with any profits which may result. The other parts of the question are still under consideration, and until the views of the Economic Co-operation Administrator are known no final decision can be reached.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can we be given an undertaking that what is available will be used as far as possible in order to improve the capital equipment of this country and the efficiency of industry, rather than constantly taking it out of the workmen, as has been done for far too long?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Naturally, it would be used by the Government in the best interests of the country, both socially and economically.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the decision of the Economic Administrator will be operable law in this country without the sanction of this House?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Nothing I have said would lead anyone to believe that.

Major Bruce: Would my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he or his right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement in the House indicating the detailed manner in which the Marshall Plan will be put into operation so far as this country is concerned?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Obviously, that is not a matter for me, and questions of that kind should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As the Plan develops, I imagine it will be necessary to publicise what is to be done, and that discussions will take place thereon.

U.S.A. Films (Earnings)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount was earned and remitted to the U.S.A. during the year 1947, as earnings on U.S. films shown in the United Kingdom, by each of the following U.S. film companies:

Paramount, Warner Brothers, R.K.O., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Columbia.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am afraid I cannot give particulars of the remittances of individual companies.

Mr. Wyatt: Does my right hon. Friend mean to say that there is no machinery available for ascertaining how much money is being remitted by each of these companies? If so, how does he propose to control their remittances under the agreement?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My reply would not indicate that that is the position.

Statutory Instruments (Publication)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that copies of many statutory rules and regulations are not available at the Stationery Office, he will instruct the appropriate Departments to make available to the public by other means the information needed to keep the public informed of the orders and regulations now in force.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If, as I assume, the hon. Member is referring to Statutory Instruments which are exempt from printing and publication under the Statutory Instruments Regulations, 1947, the answer is, "No, Sir." These instruments are for the most part either published in a separate series or are of a local character and not of sufficient general interest to warrant publication. In such cases, it is for the Department concerned to make copies available to interested persons, and I am satisfied that they do so already.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that some 3,000 statutory rules and orders were issued in 1947, amounting to about eight a day? How can people possibly know what they are about, when they are not obtainable from the Stationery Office? Does it not, clearly, bring the whole thing into ridicule?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the failure of the Minister to answer my question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Typewriters (Government Departments)

Commander Noble: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many typewriting machines have been supplied to, and ordered for, Government Departments during the past year.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Six thousand, six hundred and seventy-two supplied; 3,448 ordered.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that many firms, cannot supply their orders without a delay up to two years, owing to the large numbers ordered by the newly-created Electricity Boards?

Mr. Beswick: Can my right hon. Friend tell us why that some of these public authorities are now having to import typewriters from the Russian zone of Germany at prices greater than those at which we are exporting our own machines?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that down. I have answered the Question on the Order Paper.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Can the Minister say how many of these typewriters are British and how many have been imported?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not without notice.

Official Advertisements (Individual Firms)

Captain Crowder: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to what extent it is now the policy of the Government to mention individual firms by name in Government-sponsored advertisements; and in how many cases this has occurred.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: For the past six months, it has been the policy of the Government to publish the names of individual firms with achievements to their credit in production or price reduction, for the sake of example and encouragement. The names of 40 firms have so far been mentioned in the Government's "Reports to the Nation."
Captain Crowder: Does not the Financial Secretary agree that it is very hard on the competitors of these firms whose products are advertised in this way at Government expense in Government publications?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have approved. It is competition at its best.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who selects the recipients of these Government "Oscars"?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In a sense, they select themselves by their example.

Motor Licences

Mr. Turton: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether motorists, of whom it is certified that they have delivered up unused all coupons except standard ration coupons, will be entitled to reclaim half the licence duty they have already paid in respect of their motor vehicles.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On or after 1st June, motorists in such circumstances will be able to exchange their full rate licence for one at half-rate. Refund in respect of any unexpired currency of the full rate licence will be payable in the usual way.

Mr. Turton: Will the Finance Bill be amended to make that clear?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I understand that the Finance Bill does make that clear, but perhaps we can discuss that when we come to the Finance Bill.

Economic Situation (Publicity)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the economic plight of the country as shown by the Economic Survey, 1948, what new steps he proposes to take to compel the nation to face the facts.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In this country, it is customary to invite rather than to compel people to accept particular attitudes of mind; and the steady rise in production over a wide field of industry is evidence that the public is responding to the measures which the Government has taken, and will continue to take, to make the economic situation widely known.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that, up to even quite recently, the Lord President of the Council was not aware that there was an economic crisis?

Major Bruce: Would it not be of some help if the Opposition paid some attention to facts themselves?

INTERNEES, CYPRUS (BRITISH CITIZENSHIP)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give an assurance that no preference over other applicants for British citizenship will be given to illegal Jewish immigrants or other internees now in camps in Cyprus.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. In the unlikely event of an application from such a person for naturalisation as a British subject, I should not regard residence in an internment camp in Cyprus as giving him any claim to-early consideration.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I ask my right hon. Friend what are the conditions now governing the granting of British citizenship to immigrants in Cyprus?

Mr. Ede: They are governed by the ordinary law, and I hesitate to instruct my hon. and learned Friend on that.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great anxiety of these people is to get out of Cyprus?

Mr. Ede: I am anxious that they should not get out of Cyprus and into this country and count the time they have been in Cyprus as qualifying them for the granting of British nationality.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Lord President of the Council if he has a statement to make about the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:
On Monday, 3rd May—Second Reading of the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Bill, and Committee and remaining stages of the Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Bill.
Tuesday, 4th May—Supply (11th Allotted Day), Committee. The Supply day will be taken formally and afterwards the Adjournment will be moved for a Debate on foreign affairs.
Wednesday, 5th May—Conclusion of the Debate on foreign affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. At the end of the Debate, it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the House of Commons Members' Fund Bill.
Thursday, 6th May—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Friday, 7th May—Second Reading of the Children Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
During the week we shall take the Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order which relates to drugs and medicines.

Mr. Eden: With regard to Monday's Business. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Bill is narrow in scope and—I am not making any particular complaint—I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I say that we on this side of the House will seek an early opportunity for a wider Debate on this subject, a wider Debate than the Bill allows. About the foreign affairs Debate, there is a Motion on the Order Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, about Western Union, and I wonder whether he would think and you would think, Sir, that it might be for the convenience of the House if the second day of that Debate, while not specifically allotted—there being no specific agreement about it—might not generally be treated as a day on which this subject might be discussed, whether on the Motion or not—whether the Debate could be broadly divided in that way?

Mr. Morrison: On the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Bill, I am not settling the exact form or the occasion upon which the wider discussion might take place, but that could well be considered through the usual channels and we will do our best to reach an amicable arrangement. With regard to the Debate on foreign affairs, if the House generally would find the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion acceptable, that is quite all right so far as the Government are concerned. In that case, the second day's Debate could be in relation to Western Union and in relation to the Motion which has been widely signed and is on the Order Paper. I think that will be convenient to all sides


of the House and, while I would not propose that we should give facilities for the Motion to be moved, the substance of it could be discussed in the second day's Debate.

Mr. Eden: May I ask, Sir, if that would meet with your approval?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that I am in the hands of the House. As I understand it, there is going to be a two-day's Debate, one day on general foreign affairs and the next day more or less taken up on this Motion. So far as I am concerned, it has my approval entirely.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If the Debate is going to take place on the Motion—

Mr. Speaker: Not on the Motion. I think the second day would have to be devoted to the subject, and so far as I can control Members in their speeches, I will try to call people who are going to talk on this subject. That would be one of those unofficial arrangements which we have. I think that could be arranged.

Mr. Stokes: With regard to the Debate on foreign affairs, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will exercise his influence to restrain Members on the Front Bench on both sides from occupying too much time of the House and thus giving back benchers no real opportunity of expressing their views?

Mr. Morrison: On this occasion, as on all occasions, my hon. Friend's observations will be taken notice of in high quarters.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I understand that the Debate on Wednesday is to be on Western Union—although the Motion widely signed on that subject is not to be moved, at any rate the Debate is by general agreement to centre around that—and may I ask whether it will include the various Amendments to that Motion, which have also been very widely signed?

Mr. Morrison: I confess that it took me long enough to study the Motion and I have not studied all the Amendments, but I should have thought if there are views and opinions which would wish to amend the Motion they would be relevant to the Debate.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will consider giving time for the House to discuss the negotiations which have been taking place between the Cabinet Committee and the T.U.C. Crisis Committee on the economic situation, especially now the negotiations have happily come to a conclusion? In view of the very great importance of these negotiations to every Member of this House, could we not have an opportunity of knowing what has happened and of debating it?

Mr. Morrison: I should not have thought so. There were days of discussion recently about the economic affairs. I gather that the hon. Member thinks that these particular interchanges of opinion have come to a happy conclusion and, if things have come to a happy conclusion, I should have thought that was fine, and there was no need to talk about it.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has observed the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, of myself and of one or two others asking for a Select Committee? May I ask him whether he is now in a position to grant that Select Committee—his domestic investigation being concluded—or alternatively to give us an opportunity of debating whether a Select Committee should be set up?
[That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into, and to report upon, the circumstances in which the names of Members of this House are alleged to have been added without their consent to a telegram sent on the 16th April to Signor Nenni.]

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid not. I should have thought, having regard to the news in this morning's newspapers, that the Motion has become rather out of date.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman has not observed that the news in this morning's newspapers has nothing to do with the point of the Motion on the Order Paper. May I ask him, if he does not feel he can give Government time to the matter, whether he will consider, through the usual channels, a proposal by the Opposition that they will be willing to give


some of their time in order that this House of Commons matter may be effectively debated?

Mr. Morrison: I would be hesitant to interfere with what the Opposition do with their time. I wish to be very respectful to that time of the House under the control of the Opposition, but I am afraid the Government themselves would not be willing to give time for the discussion of a matter which I think has been effectively dealt with, which is domestic to one of the political parties and on which that political party, I gather—I do not know—does not need the assistance of the official Opposition.

Mr. Eden: Has the right hon. Gentleman not observed that I do not wish to intrude into the domestic side at all? Has he not observed that the hon. Member who is perhaps most intimately concerned with the outcome of the domestic discussion—if I may put it that way—has himself said that the side of the matter in regard to the signatures was not discussed at any time?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid this has got beyond me. I cannot keep up with it.

Mr. Churchill: May I lend the right hon. Gentleman a crutch or a spur? He has been dealing with his party, family, domestic affairs and we certainly feel no over-compelling inducement to enter into them, but this is a question, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, of the way in which Members should be treated by their fellow Members of the House of Commons; whether advantage should be taken of their carelessness or whatever it may be, or actual travesties put forward of their views when their signatures are attached to a particular document. That is a question we consider we have a right to discuss and it is a House of Commons question—nothing to do with the domestic affairs of the Labour Party, domestic affairs about which the Labour Party are in labour, but one which nevertheless is extremely important for the decent conduct of affairs in the House.

Mr. Morrison: I should be the last to say that this is not a welcome and admirable sentiment of public spirit which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. But, if I may say so, it is purely incidental. The matters to which his right hon. Friend referred are matters

in which Members of Parliament are concerned, but if those concerned had not been Members of Parliament the same action would have been taken. Therefore, I cannot see that it is a matter which concerns the House of Commons as such. It is a matter of the internal affairs of the political party concerned. They are dealing with it, and I do not believe it concerns the corporate activities or capacity of the House of Commons.

Mr. Austin: On foreign affairs, in view of the fact that a great deal of the time of the Foreign Affairs Debate will be taken up by Front Benchers—

Mr. Stokes: No.

Mr. Austin: —and in view of the fact that humble back benchers like myself have been waiting for almost three years to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on a Foreign Affairs Debate, will the Leader of the House consider radically extending the time on Tuesday night to allow those with viewpoints of their own to express them?

Mr. Morrison: I think my hon. Friend is a little premature and unduly depressed. He does not yet know how much time will be occupied by Front Benchers. He had better wait and see how we get on.

Mr. Eden: To revert to the matter previously being discussed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am only anxious that there should be no misunderstanding. I understand the position of the Leader of the House, which is that the Government are not prepared to give time for it. We, the Opposition, have said that we are prepared to make provision for that purpose with time out of our own allotment. I assume that how that can be done will be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Morrison: Certainly; and I earnestly trust that a good day will be had by all.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to raise with the Leader of the House a matter which I consider is of very great importance to this House. Arising out of the fact that there is such general agreement between the other side of the House and the Government, in my opinion the time has now arrived when the responsibility for leading the Opposition should be taken from the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and transferred to one of those—

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to connect his question with the Business for next week. After all, we are not now dealing with the Opposition or the Government.

Mr. Gallacher: I want an opportunity to discuss this question. I consider it very important for the House that—

Mr. Speaker: Under our Rules we may discuss the conduct of the Government, but we may not discuss the conduct of the Opposition.

Mr. Gallacher: Well, I ask the Leader of the House whether we cannot get a day to discuss the possibility of one of those now being accused by the Tories and by the Labour leaders of being in opposition to the Government, being transferred to the position now held by the right hon. Member for Woodford?

Mr. Morrison: There is something in what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not applying for the job, mind you.

Mr. Morrison: I am a little disinclined to agree with the hon. Member because if we were to debate that, we should also have to debate the extraordinary concurrence of opinion en certain matters between the hon. Member and Lord Beaverbrook.

Mr. Churchill: And Moscow.

Mr. Gallacher: That record has worn a little thin.

Mr. Chamberlain: For our guidance, would the Leader of the House tell us whether during the Foreign Affairs Debate the Foreign Secretary's statement is likely to cover the whole field; and, particularly, whether he is likely to deal with the Far Eastern situation, which many of us think is very important and which has been greatly neglected by this House for many months?

Mr. Morrison: I could not be sure. Perhaps my hon. Friend would communicate with the Foreign Secretary and find out. I am not quite sure what the scope will be.

Mr. Pritt: On the question of the time to be allotted for the Foreign Affairs Debate, the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) that he must not be too worried about the amount of time taken by Front Benchers. If the usual expectation of the Front Bench taking a long time is realised, will the Leader of the House consider an extension of the time, if only on Tuesday?

Mr. Morrison: I think we had better wait till a little later and see how things go on.

Mr. Stokes: Could not my right hon. Friend restrain the Front Bench?

Mr. Churchill: How the right hon. Gentleman would like to!

BILL PRESENTED

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL

"to amend the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, in relation to increases of disablement benefit under Section fourteen of that Act," presented by Mr. James Griffiths; supported by Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. Steele; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to he printed. [Bill 77.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'Clock.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Periodical inspections.)

The Minister shall secure the inspection and examination of a licensed stallion at such intervals as he may consider proper for the purpose of ascertaining that there is no ground for revoking the licence in respect of the stallion.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.47 P.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause has, been put down at the request of hon. Members opposite, who raised this matter in Committee. It was thought at that time by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) and the hon. Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. G. Williams), that all stallions ought to be examined at least once a year to ascertain whether or not they were diseased, or whether conformation was not right. At that time I thought that perhaps they had made something of a case, but that it was impossible to have an examination exactly each year, within the 365 days. However, we have, as nearly as we could, given effect to their general desires by making it clear in this new Clause that an examination will take place at such intervals as we may consider necessary for this particular purpose. I hope that hon. Members opposite will feel that we have given effect to the promise I made.

Mr. Gerald Williams: We welcome this new Clause as being an improvement on the Bill. However, as the whole Bill depends on an adequate inspection I feel that it is still a little loose. It simply says that stallions shall be inspected at intervals, as the Minister considers proper. That is very vague. The Minister said that he hopes to do it once a year; but we may eventually get an extremely slack Minister, or slack people who have to carry the order out. In fact, some animals may even get missed altogether for a year or two. We are very keen that these permits should be stamped with a rubber stamp, or endorsed with some Government mark, so that we know

that the stallion cannot carry on its duties unless the permit is in adequate order. The Minister is no doubt happy in his mind that this will be the case, but we should have been happier had it been stated in the Bill that the permit has to be stamped every year. It is easy to get a permit for a young stallion; if he is pure he will probably pass the examination with the utmost ease, but within a few years anything might happen. Unless we know that the permit will be stamped by Government officials each year, the Bill will not he satisfactory.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: The new Clause goes a long way to meet our wishes. I would like the assurance of the Minister, however, that, although the phraseology does not use the words "annual inspection," it is the general policy of the Government that inspections should be made as nearly annually as is possible and practicable.

Mr. T. Williams: I can reply only with the permission of the House. I think I can give that assurance at once to the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale). It is our intention, as nearly as is humanly possible, consistent with the number of veterinary surgeons available, to have annual inspections, but we do not want to be tied down to an exact date.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Keeping of stallions to be subject to licence or permit.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out "prescribed age," and to insert "age of four years."
This Amendment is made following the request during the Committee stage of the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams). It changes the "prescribed age" from two to four years.

Mr. G. Williams: I wish to thank the Minister for introducing this Amendment. It means that the Bill will take effect two years earlier than it otherwise would have done. We do not think it will inconvenience anyone and are grateful to the Minister for acceding to our request.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Grant of permits in respect of stallions.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, to leave out "or may revoke a permit."
I think it would be convenient for the House if we could discuss at the same time the further Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend, in line 30, to insert the new Subsection (3).

Mr. Speaker: I think that these Amendments and that in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) in line 30 all come together.

Mr. Brown: The first Amendment, to line 27, is made to meet wishes expressed by hon. Members on both sides during Committee and in particular by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The point was made that the Minister should have complete discretion in the giving of a permit for anyone for whom a licence had had to be refused, but that the conditions under which a permit, once given, could be withdrawn should be more tightly drawn and limited to the circumstances in which the conditions of the permit were broken. The words we now seek to add to the Bill will have that effect. My right hon. Friend will now be in a position to give a permit for an animal for whom a licence could not be issued and which might otherwise have to be castrated or destroyed. He will have the right to lay down the conditions under which the permit will be issued. We now seek to have inserted in the Bill a limiting Subsection which will mean that, provided the conditions of the permit are not broken, the permit will continue to exist; otherwise, if the conditions of the permit are broken, the Minister will have the power of revocation.

Sir T. Dugdale: We proposed five Amendments to meet this point and I think the Government have managed to effect it in two. The principle which I think is covered by the Government's proposals, is that the power to revoke a permit should be limited to cases where a person has broken or not kept the conditions of his permit. That is the

principle underlying our discussions during the Committee stage and I think it is covered by the Government's proposal. We are not clear, however, on the wording of the second Amendment,
…if any condition subject to which that permit, or any other permit to the same person.…
We should be grateful for some information from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. T. Williams: Should any person have applied for a permit for more than one stallion which he or they wish to preserve in its present form and one condition was broken, presumably that might justify the Minister in taking steps in view of the breach of faith of that person.

Mr. G. Williams: In that case, would it not be better to say, "or any other permit for a stallion"? The present wording might be construed as a permit for selling a car or tomatoes or anything else. It should be made clear, I think, that it relates to a permit for another stallion by the same owner.

Mr. T. Williams: I should have thought that the words on the Order Paper were quite clear. They apply to a "permit" and not to a licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 30, at the end, insert:
(3) The Minister may revoke a permit if any condition subject to which that permit, or any other permit to the same person, has been granted is contravened or not complied with."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Power to order slaughter or castration of stallions.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 27, leave out "prescribed age," and insert "age of four years."

CLAUSE 9.—(Presumptions as to licence or permit being in force, and as to age of stallions.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 21, leave out "that age," and insert "the age of four years."

In line 33, leave out "that age," and insert "the age of four years."

In line 38, leave out "prescribed age," and insert "age of four years."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Commencement, construction, citation and extent of Part II, and repeal.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 20, at end, insert:
(4) In computing the age of a stallion for the purposes of this Part of this Act, the stallion shall be treated as having attained the age of one year on the first day of January next after the year in which it was foaled.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
This Measure has clearly met with wide agreement on all sides of the House. We have had assistance from hon. Members, which is appreciated and which I am glad to recognise, in helping to improve the Bill during its passage. We think that the Bill as it now stands meets the desires of hon. Members. It will greatly help in proceeding with the eradication of tuberculosis and in improving the standards of livestock.

3.59 P.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am not in disagreement with anything which the Parliamentary Secretary has said but before the Bill leaves this House for another place I would like to refer briefly to Part I. We on this side are anxious that the eradication of bovine tuberculosis should be proceeded with as speedily as possible. For that reason, no opportunity should be lost of drawing the attention of the Government to this fact. We appreciate that the Government are, in agreement on this point and we suggest that every advantage be taken of drawing this question to the notice of the public. We agree with the provisions of Part I.
During the Committee stage we had much discussion on how the progress report would be made known to the House and to the public by the Government. The Minister assured us that no addition to the Bill was necessary because, under Section 50 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, he had powers to present an annual return to the House, and that that return would include an account of the Government's actions during the year towards the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. These reports were not made during the war period for obvious reasons, but the Minister promised that a report for the period covering the war years, namely, from 1939 to 1946, would be presented in the

very near future, and it would be interesting to know whether it has now been printed and whether there are any prospects of it being available in the near future.
There is one other point I should like to make in this connection, and that is in regard to the reports the Minister will be making under the provisions of Part I of the Bill. These reports should not be just statements of the payments in cash value made to certain owners of herds, but should be detailed reports giving the House and the country a clear picture of what progress has been made. We attach considerable importance to Part I of the Bill, and we hope that in due course the Opposition Members and Members opposite will, by their cooperative efforts, achieve a real improvement in the dairy herds of this country.

4.3 P.m.

Mr. Hurd: I should like to support very strongly what has just been said. I hope that we shall be able to make some real progress as a result of the provisions in this Bill. I too hope, that the annual reports to be made to Parliament will not be as dry as dust, just setting out total figures, but will show what progress is being made in each county, so that the farmers and the country can see how fast we are moving and what difficulties are being encountered. If that is not done, Clause 1 will lead us no further than the legislation already on the statute book. We want to create real public interest in securing the eradication of tuberculosis from our cattle. It is important also that the veterinary surgeons, for whose training we are to be asked to make further provisions quite shortly, should know that there will really be scope for their best efforts. I urge the Minister to give us more enlightenment in the future about what is being achieved under Clause 1. I am sure that this Bill will be welcomed by the farming community, and no less by mothers. If we can get county by county cleared of tuberculosis, we shall not only be helping the bovine population, but also the human population.

4.5 P.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The progress report referred to was sent to the printers immediately after the Committee stage and I


expect it to be available within the next few days. I will take note of the suggestion that the reports from 1946 onwards shall contain more information than cold statistics. It would be entirely out of Order to attempt to discuss any long-term schemes for the eradication of tuberculosis. Part I deals with the extension of payments made available in 1937, and so a start can be made in that direction. I can assure the House that discussions have already taken place between my Department and the N.F.U., and also with the Milk Marketing Board. There is very little difference between us on the general principles, but there are still highly complex points to be settled, especially in regard to the financial aspect. Members will appreciate that when anything in the nature of a slaughter policy is contemplated, we must also contemplate the possibility of giving some financial assistance. That is not an easy matter to settle. Whenever any scheme is prepared, it will have to be brought before the House and there will be ample opportunities for discussion.
As I said on Second Reading, progress in this direction depends on several factors. For instance, progress will be determined by the number of veterinary surgeons available and the number of attested cattle available for replacements. It will also be determined to some extent by the amount of milk we can afford to lose if we adopt a slaughtering policy. There are also the ever-present problems of water supply and buildings. It will be a big job calling for both patience and determination, which, I hope, will be exercised. I do not think I can say anything more at this stage in regard to a long-term scheme. Discussions have taken place and they will be renewed early in June. As soon as it is possible for us to start area by area clearance schemes, the happier I shall be, and we are all glad to know that we are now on the highway. I can assure the House that we shall waste no time, bearing in mind the complex problems we have to face.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill deals with some rather urgent matters in connection with these two industries. It contains eight principal Clauses. The first deals with the size of mesh of nets for fishing in the North Sea; the second with licensing of fishing in the North Sea; the third with financial assistance to inshore fishing; the fourth with loans to fishermen's co-operative societies; the fifth with assistance to the Herring Industry Board; the sixth with advances to improving the procedure for maintaining the Herring Industry Board; the seventh with the general powers of the Herring Industry Board; and the eighth with the powers of Ministers to give general directions to the Board.
Clauses 1 and 2 arise from the International Conference on Overfishing, which took place in London in 1946. The question of overfishing was debated in this House on two occasions last year, and hon. Members are familiar with the problem, and with the attempts to secure international action to deal with it. Over-fishing means that the stock of breeding fish is reduced because more fish are taken out than are reproduced. Stocks of fish in the sea cannot be measured directly, but the yield from fishing and the percentage of small fish in the catches give a good indication of the state of stocks. Our scientists have been giving a considerable amount of study to this matter during the war, and as a result Britain called for this conference.
Statistics of the fisheries between the wars showed that overfishing took place in the North Sea then. The replenishment of stocks during the first world war, when there was little fishing in the North Sea, encouraged activity. Immediately afterwards the stocks declined markedly, and by 1937 were considerably below the level in 1913. The results of this overfishing were that greater and greater effort and expense were required to catch the same amount of fish. To a considerable extent, fishing became unprofitable. During the second world war, the North Sea fish had


a second chance to multiply and again increased in numbers, but even after three years the weight of fish caught for a given effort and the percentage of smaller fish show that the results of overfishing are already to be seen.
Overfishing can be controlled only through international agreement, and it is in the interests of all countries concerned to prevent it. This country, which before the war caught nearly one-quarter of the fish taken out of the North Sea, has a special interest in this. Much of Britain's fish comes from other areas, such as the Arctic, Iceland and elsewhere, where overfishing has not yet been found, but nearly all the best fish and the fish of prime varieties come from the North Sea. The British Government convened an International Conference in 1946, with a view to limiting the tonnage of vessels fishing in the North Sea. The convention drawn up by that Conference prescribed new minimum sizes for the mesh of nets, and larger minimum sizes of certain kinds of fish which might be landed. A standing advisory committee was set up after the Conference. This committee has proposed further measures, including a British proposal to limit the tonnage of British vessels fishing in the North Sea to 85 per cent. of the tonnage in 1938. I should perhaps explain that the tonnage of the present British North Sea fleet is about four-fifths of the 1938 figure, and has not yet reached that figure of 85 per cent. Therefore, it is not an immediate problem to provide a limitation for British tonnage.
We have been pressing the countries which have not yet ratified the 1946 Convention to do so, and we are considering bringing the new mesh and new minimum sizes of fish into force without delay. We have also been pressing other countries for an indication that they will put into effect the further measures put forward by the standing advisory committee last year. The report of the committee became available in the House earlier this week. Under the Sea Fishing Industry Act, 1933, fishery Ministers have powers to regulate the minimum size of nets, but those powers do not extend to territorial waters. The first Clause of this Bill remedies this by extending the existing powers to territorial waters. This shows our willingness to take steps to put the agreement into force, and we hope

that our example will be followed by the other countries.
Clause 2 deals with the points discussed on the standing advisory committee. It provides machinery for dealing with the limitation of the tonnage of the North Sea fleet. This can only be done by a licensing system, such as that provided in this Clause. The system will not, however, be brought into force until after an appointed day, which cannot be fixed until Ministers are satisfied that other countries are taking equivalent measures. Provision is made for the exemption of certain classes of boats from the need to have licences. For example, licences would not be necessary for very small boats. The licensing system will not apply to boats when they are fishing for mackerel, sprats, pilchards and herrings, or for shellfish and salmon.
I now turn to the part of this Bill which deals with the inshore fishing industry. Clause 3 provides additional money for the purposes of the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945. Under that Act, grants and loans may be made for the provision, improvement and reconditioning of boats and gear. The grants provided under that Act total £500,000, and the loans £800,000. It was intended that this provision should cover the five-year period from December, 1945, to December, 1950, but, it is likely that it will be exhausted in the autumn of this year. A great deal of advantage has been taken of the assistance available, and up to 1st April the total commitments made for England and Wales and Scotland amounted to £400,000 by way of grant, and £693,000 by way of loan. Applications are still flowing in, and the Fisheries Department have on their books a considerable number of applications from fishermen desiring to acquire ex-naval motor fishing vessels as they are released from time to time by the Admiralty.
Available sums have run out quicker than was anticipated because the fishermen have elected to build a higher proportion of the larger boats. I welcome this tendency, as larger boats are less subject to the difficulties of bad weather. The second reason for the drain on the money available has been the considerable rise in costs since the Act was passed. That applies not only to materials, but also to labour costs.
In the case of Scotland, grants so far offered cover the construction of 104 new vessels and the purchase of 26 ex-naval vessels as well as the purchase and reconditioning of 133 second-hand boats. Over 600 Scots fishermen will benefit directly from the assistance given. Grants in England and Wales cover 78 new boats, 15 Admiralty motor fishing vessels and 136 second-hand boats, and about 320 fishermen will benefit. It may be asked why there are more in Scotland than in England and Wales. The point is that inshore fishing is much more a definite part of the fisherman's life in Scotland than in England where there are sometimes alternative methods of earning one's livelihood, and the fishing is not so consistent as in the North. The tendency in Scotland is also for larger boats, which accounts for the larger catch, and, to some extent, the larger cost. [Interruption.] It helps a larger catch, if one can get it. The point of the Bill is that we are trying to prepare measures so that the catch will be there when the boats go out. The purpose of the Bill is to protect the breeding of fish in the North Sea, so that when the boats go out there is something to catch.
The inshore fisheries are carried on by fishermen all round our coasts in boats up to about 70 feet in length. They land appreciable quantities of fish in fresh condition, and in 1947 accounted for over 1¾ million cwts. of white fish, or a little over 10 per cent. of the total landings of white fish in Great Britain. In Scotland the inshore fisheries are specially important as they produce about one-third of the total catch of white fish available in our country. In 1947, the landings of these fishermen were over two-and-a-half times as great as in 1938. Apart from the contributions to food supplies, the inshore fisheries provide a very valuable reserve of small craft and men for emergencies. I think it is very desirable to continue the provision of these grants and loans, as they are being of great help in the re-equipment of this side of the industry.
Clause 4 provides for loans to help fishermen's co-operatives. Co-operatives of this type have been formed at over 50 ports in England and Wales but there are only three in Scotland. These organisations usually engage in such activities as the provision of fuel and other requisites

for fishing, bulk purchasing of gear for boats, marketing of the catch, and provision of communal facilities, such as sheds for the storage of gear, and insurance. These co-operatives can play a big part in helping the fishermen. It often requires considerable capital outlay to start a co-operative—£2,000 or 3,000 or even more for the provision of a working stock of boxes, offices and yard, lorry or van, etc.
This Clause authorises loans to help in this desirable development in order to assist the formation of new co-operative organisations and to assist existing organisations to meet capital expenditure on such things as sheds for nets which can be provided with less expenditure and material on a communal basis than individually. Our experience is that they are extremely helpful to the fishermen in getting a start, and they can carry on once the foundation has been laid. The loans may not exceed £1,000 in any case or an aggregate of £100,000 during the next five years. It is desirable that if the State gives loans, the fishermen themselves should make a considerable contribution in order that their interest in the matter may be very clear.
Fishermen's co-operatives can benefit their members both through the economies which can be effected by purchasing in bulk and in the disposal of the catch. A portion of the profit which normally accrues to the middleman is secured for the fishermen; but more important the fishermen are not forced to accept terms dictated by the buyers who at the smaller ports are often few in number.
The third part of the Bill deals with the herring industry, and the main purposes of the next four Clauses are, firstly, to provide additional money for grants to the Herring Industry Board and to extend the period during which these grants may be made. Secondly, it enables additional powers to be conferred upon the Board by means of the Herring Industry Scheme. We also propose, at the same time, to speed up procedure for amending the Herring Industry Scheme, and to make the Board subject to formal directions from Ministers in order to bring it into harmony with other legislation on this subject. Some minor adjustments of the financial arrangements under the earlier Act are also being made.
Clause 5 provides £1,250,000 extra money for grants to the Board. It is estimated that £1 million will be required for projects for converting herring to oil and other products, and the balance will be available for schemes such as the development of winter fisheries research and experiment, for which grants may already be made.
The Board are acting as agents of the Government for carrying out projects for converting herring to oil and meal. The oil can be used for margarine and many other purposes and the meal for cattle food. The projects will help to save imports. The projects will also provide additional outlets for the herring catch to take the place of declining export markets for pickle-cured herring. At present there is no sign of overfishing for herring, and the total British catch in 1947 was lower than 1938 and less than half the pre-1914 level of 3 million crans. In 1946, the Board set as a target the conversion of 1 million crans of herring; this is equivalent to about 17,000 tons of oil.
The Board will be reimbursed for expenditure incurred by them on approved schemes and the grants to be made will cover not only capital expenditure but any loss made in the initial period. The Board have taken over from the Ministry of Food the payment of subsidy to fishermen for herring supplied for conversion. Hitherto, there have been only one or two factories intended mainly for converting herring; the other factories employed were primarily for processing white fish and have not been conveniently situated for the herring ports. The price which factories can pay to fishermen for herring varies with the quality of the herring and the distance it has to be transported. In 1947, the average price was about 8s. 6d. per cran. The Ministry of Food, however, offered the fishermen 30s. per cran for all herring surplus to other requirements subject to the limit of capacity of the available factories.
In 1947, about 40,000 crans of herring were converted to oil and meal. Over one-third of this amount was landed and processed in Shetland. Fishermen in other areas did not supply as much herring for this purpose as we had hoped. The reason was largely because they thought the price offered—30s. per cran—is too low to justify the additional effort required to produce the additional supplies. The

price of 30s. included a subsidy of 21s. This year we have offered the fishermen 35s. per cran with a view to stimulating greater efforts in bringing herring in.
The price paid to the fishermen under present arrangements varies according to the use made of the herring; and the oil and meal price is the lowest in the scale. This price structure does not help us to get the maximum production of herring and the maximum use of the catch. In an experimental scheme at Lerwick in 1946 and 1947, the Herring Industry Board arranged with the fishermen that their herring should be taken over by the Board at a flat rate, and that any profits made by the Board in disposing of the catch would be shared out amongst the fishermen at the end of the season. This scheme worked with great success. The fiat price encouraged the fishermen to think in terms of as much fish as they could land, rather than about the proportion which would realise the highest price for the home market.
Clause 7 extends the working capital for the Herring Industry Board. It makes it possible for the Board to be given powers to take over at a flat price all herring landed in any prescribed area. At the moment these schemes are voluntary. In the meantime we will proceed to develop them so far as we can, and the Herring Industry Board have carried out an experiment in Shetland and are now hoping to try similar arrangements in Stornoway. In due course, we hope that the fishermen will realise the benefits of a scheme such as this. If this provision becomes law it is intended to amend the Herring Industry Scheme accordingly.
The procedure at the moment for amending the Herring Industry Scheme has proved cumbersome and slow, and the Bill substitutes a quicker procedure. Under the present powers, the Board prepare a draft amending scheme, but they can only do so after consulting the industry and after being satisfied that there is a prevailing opinion in the industry in favour of the scheme. The scheme is then submitted to Ministers who can modify it only with the Board's assent. The scheme requires an affirmative Resolution, but Ministers cannot submit it to Parliament for approval unless, after a further period for objections, they are in turn satisfied about the prevailing opinion in the industry.
This procedure was laid down in the Act of 1935. It does not provide a means of conferring additional powers on the Board quickly when the need for them develops. Neither can the Government take the initiative. Under the proposals of this Bill, action will be started by the Ministers after consulting with the Board. A draft amending scheme will be advertised and there will be opportunities for all concerned to have their say. This amending scheme will still require affirmative approval of the House and the House will have full control over the change.
The Bill, for the first time, brings the Minister of Food into a formal relationship with the Board. The Board was, of course, set up before the Ministry was created and its responsibilities extend into matters which are now the responsibility of the Minister of Food. After the proposals in the Bill are adopted, the Ministry will share responsibility with the fisheries Ministers in regard to such general questions as the amending of the Herring Industry Scheme and in giving directions to the Board. It is under Clause 8 of the Bill that these directions may be made, and under it the fishery Ministers may give directions in the national interest to the Herring Industry Board. A similar power has been taken in all recent legislation setting up public Boards for the management of particular industries.
This Bill will bring very great and immediate benefits to the fishing industry, and will also enable the organisation to be speeded up, as a result of which I hope the Herring Industry Board will be able to take much bigger steps with a view to securing the prosperity of the industry. Whether we shall get an agreement with other countries in respect of precautions against over-fishing is still a matter for conjecture, but this country exercises a considerable influence. We ourselves will show an example by proceeding to deal with the question of the size of the mesh, but the decision about the tonnage will not take effect until after the appointed day, which will be when Ministers are satisfied that other countries are also playing the game. Whether other countries take steps in regard to meshes or not, it is important, for our own sake, that we should take such steps as we can to prevent the over-fishing of the North Sea.

Mr. Scollan: Are there any provisions in the Bill for the inspection of trawlers in the North Sea?

Mr. Woodburn: The Bill does not deal with trawlers.

Mr. Scollan: I mean seine net fishing.

Mr. Woodburn: It is not covered by the Bill. Powers exist to control fishing, but there is nothing in the Bill to deal with that particular point.

Mr. Scollan: I think my right hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I was referring to the nets of trawlers and inshore fishing boats. Is there any arrangement for the inspection of boats which are fishing in the North Sea?

Mr. Woodburn: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. There are powers of inspection. If we are to make regulations we must be able to enforce them. We can enforce them in our own country, but we cannot enforce them on other countries. As I say, even if other countries do not take steps immediately, it is important that we ourselves, in the areas in which we are fishing, should permit the breeding of fish so that they can maintain their reproduction at a suitable rate. This country is limited in its power to use its land for the production of food. Fortunately, we are a sea-going and fishing race, and we have around our shores tremendous resources of food. While this Bill deals with only a limited part of our problem, it nevertheless deals with an important part, and I commend its acceptance to the House.

4.34 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure no one will quarrel with the concluding sentences of the speech of the Secretary of State, namely, that we have around our shores enormous resources of raw material both for food and other uses which, especially in present circumstances, are of the greatest importance to this country. This Bill deals with two aspects of our fisheries—first, the adequate utilisation of this asset by ourselves, and secondly, co-operation with others. Co-operation is the vital point—I am not sure that the Minister made enough of it—and we must see that this pool of economic resources is not drained dry.


That is the problem with which we are faced; it transcends altogether the arrangements for proper internal organisation which the Minister has put before the House, arrangements for the more rapid and more efficient extraction of these resources.
Unless we can get a far greater degree of co-operation on the replenishment of these resources, a more rapid rate of extraction will simply mean a more rapid run-down of the whole process. Because of two successive wars, which meant two long periods of rest for our fishing areas in the North Sea, it has been proved possible—although one would scarcely believe it—for human beings around the shores of the North Sea to catch all the fish in the sea, or, following the analogy of the American Dust Bowl, to leave the North Sea as a salt bowl from which, when the sea is strained with nets, all that is obtained is salt. That was actually taking place before the 1914–18 war, and also took place before the last war, not in regard to herring but certainly in regard to white fish.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food was in her place during the earlier part of the Secretary of State's speech, and it is a pity that she should have withdrawn herself from the discussion now, because of all the people who are interested in this Bill, the Ministry of Food are more interested than anyone else. White Papers without number have drawn attention to the necessity for making the best use of our fishing resources to balance the shortage of other foods. That is a very necessary thing, but if increasing emphasis is placed on a diminishing supply then a great disaster awaits this country. Because fishing is carried on by small units, and the fish are landed at a great diversity of ports, it does not attract the same attention as the great imports of other foods from other countries. Yet it is of transcending importance. The whole of the meat import from South America to this country, pre-war, amounted to 500,000 tons a year. The catch of herring by our own vessels alone amounted to 250,000 tons a year; the landings of white fish totalled 800,000 tons a year, and the two together amounted to over 1 million tons a year—twice as much as the whole of the South American meat trade. If we consider the amount of capital, attention and

international negotiation which has gone on about the South American meat trade and compare it with the attention given to the fishing industry, I think we should find that the meat trade had been given twice as much attention. If the fishery industry has had a quarter of that attention, I should be surprised. The danger of neglecting this great industry is, therefore, very real.
This Bill is in series with the Sea Fishing Act, 1933, and the vital Duncan Report which arose from the Duncan Commission appointed under that Act. It is necessary to note, especially when, by a coincidence, the Bill is being discussed by an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, following the Secretary of State, that the fishing industry is by no means solely a Scottish industry. It is an industry in which England plays a very large part indeed. The great trawler fleets of Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood, and other English ports generally, are outstanding among the fishing fleets of the world. English vessels landed a large percentage of the fish caught in the North Sea. It is truly a United Kingdom industry. The shoals of herring may start in the North, but the active and hardy constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) who follow them around, are greatly indebted to the landing facilities which they encounter in East Anglia. We are talking today not of any kind of limited or parochial industry; it is a great industry which is of the highest importance in the national economies of Scotland, England, and, indeed, Wales.
When the Sea Fishing Act was passed, it was the first time for 50 years that Parliament had passed an Act about sea fishing. The white fish problem was tackled along the lines of the larger mesh and the rejection of immature fish, a line which scientists had pressed on the attention of the industry and practical men for a long time, but upon which it had not been possible to get agreement. We got agreement upon that by enforcing the regulation of landings in this country. We used the great weapon of the British import market to make sure that we would get an operative international convention. That convention was the first practical step ever taken towards reducing over-fishing of the North Sea.
Today, the Minister advanced the hope that we would get agreement with foreign


countries in the further steps he intends to take. I am not sure that that will be possible without again exercising the weapon of the British import market. I do not think it will be possible for us merely to regulate mesh and restrict our own trawlers without also trying in some way to enforce this upon others.
The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) asked if there was to be inspection of fishing vessels. Yes, but only of our own ships, and of our own nets. We cannot enforce any inspection on other ships and other nets. When I hear all this talk about Western Union, I must say that the North Sea, this great food-producing salt lake, adjacent to our own shore, is a field in which Western Union will need to get to work if that field is not to become exhausted. There will need to be something with more teeth in it than the discussions on this Bill have hitherto revealed. Other countries have seen this great source of food supply, and are beginning to make inroads upon it. Even before the war we were not the largest fish catchers in the North Sea, and as there is every likelihood of famine in Europe, the pressure on the resources of the North Sea will be greater than ever before.
Before the war, the largest fishery nation in the North Sea for herring, was Norway, which took 350,000 tons a year out of the North Sea, compared with 239,000 tons by the United Kingdom. Germany lifted 216,000 tons a year, and I would not be surprised at all if the Germans, faced with a great food shortage, as they undoubtedly are, and with shipyard resources second to none in Europe, devoted their attention to building or purchasing, or being given, under Marshal aid, vessels with which to raid again the resources of the North Sea. Without some kind of international convention and administration I fear very much that the growing pressure on these resources will lead to their very rapid diminution. The North Sea is only a recently submerged part of Western Europe. The valley is still there under the sea where the Thames ran down to join the Rhine and both entered the ocean off the coast of Norway. It is in these drowned valleys that the great herds of fish pasture. If there is any part of the world fit for some kind of international operation and exploitation it

is the North Sea—the submerged part of Western Europe.
The sea is no man's land in the most literal sense of the word, and without some co-operation by those around its shores exhaustion which the scientists repeatedly prophesy and which repeatedly comes, will arrive again. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) drew attention as recently as 12th November last to the whole question of over-fishing, and particularly to the figures for hake. He said that for the first six months Of 1946 we landed 624,399 cwt. and for the first six months of 1947 the figure was reduced to 371,501 cwt. The same tale is told in Aberdeen. The landings of all classes of fish in Aberdeen which were 187,000 cwt. in March, 1947, were 147,000 cwt. in March, 1948, although the vessels coming in had been 299 in 1947 and 440 in 1948. That is to say, 140 more vessels had landed some 40,000 cwt. less of fish. That is the way of bankruptcy for the fishing industry, the road to hunger amongst the population of this country and exhaustion of the fishing fields. It will be necessary for Ministers, before the Debate is finished, to be much more specific about what they expect to do in the way of the enforcement of the admirable projects which they have laid before the House.
As far as the herring industry is concerned, the Minister pointed to the necessity of making the maximum possible use of the potential herring catch of this country, and in particular of using processing of one kind or another. He drew attention to the necessity for processing for oil and meal, but until we have used every herring that can be used for straight human food, there is no sense in processing them for oil and meal. I would say a more intensive exploration of the freezing processes is very necessary. When I see the millions upon millions that are being poured into East Africa to produce an eventual two million tons of oil-containing foodstuff as compared with the attention which is being given to this source lying at our own shores, I wonder whether we have not got the thing a little bit out of perspective. For a very much smaller sum, and a much smaller percentage of our economic resources than is needed for the expansion of the groundnut industry in East Africa, there would be an immediate return in the shape of the very fats and oil for which we are looking.
The interesting point about the herring industry is that all parties now are proceeding along the lines which the Duncan Report laid down. Those suggestions were in favour of using the small, federated man—giving him the resources of a large-scale industry without passing into the realm of nationalisation. Since I do not wish to be controversial, I might say that it is a line of approach which may give to the small man the advantages of large-scale collective enterprise while allowing him to retain the power of individual initiative. He remains on his own but enjoys the greater economic resources which are provided in the large-scale enterprises of processing, marketing and intelligence which the Herring Board makes available.

Mr. Boothby: My right hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned the Duncan Report. I hope that he will not withhold a tribute to the Elliot Report.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Perhaps I had better leave that to other speakers in the Debate, but I do not under-estimate the importance of that Report, which I attribute very largely to the admirable colleagues with whom I had to work and to the very rapid way in which the conclusions of that Report were taken up by the Ministers of the day. The difficulty of all this is that if we reduce the authority of the centre, action is to some extent slowed up. The Secretary of State spoke of the difficulty of getting sufficiently vigorous and rapid action, and many of the proposals in the Bill are devoted to that end. For instance, the Board will draw its salary from the Exchequer and the proposal for making amending schemes is being considerably shortened. When we framed the 1935 Act on the Duncan Report, we deliberately did our utmost to encourage co-operation amongst the herring fishermen and we tried to build the pyramid from the bottom up, but that proved impossible. Time and time again, as those closely engaged with the herring men will know, the machinery broke down hopelessly.

Mr. Scollan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of the opinion that pyramids can be built from the top down.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We were trying to build the pyramid from the bottom up,

but the hon. Member may not be unaware of the stalactite which grows from the top down. We have had to adopt this stalactital as against pyramidal, structure. I prefer myself a democratically based Board, but if action cannot be had by that means, other means have to be adopted. I do not deny that the Minister was quite right in giving greater powers to the nominated Board in this case. But I hope every opportunity will be taken to encourage the initiative from the bottom up. The best thing of all would be if the herring industry elected its own board, as has been done in the case of the Marketing Acts. It would produce a greater responsibility amongst the herring fishermen, and would make them more tolerant of the decisions which the Board take. I hope that it may be found possible to have such a structure of self-government within the industry.

Mr. Edward Evans: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree with the idea of having an Englishman on the Board?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There is always an Englishman on the Herring Board. I appointed the original Herring Board and I got into the greatest trouble amongst my friends North of the Border because I nominated an English chairman. We had an English representative on the Commission over which I had the honour of presiding and very good indeed he was. The English brought sanity and a power of assessing the other man's point of view as well as a power of sweet reasonableness.

Mr. Boothby: My right hon. and gallant Friend is not serious when he suggests that Scottish herring fishermen are insane?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not saying they are insane further than the parallel we find in the story of the man who had a friend called Campbell. He was asked whether he would call his friend Campbell a liar, and he said he would not like to, but if all the liars were gathered together on the top of Ben Lomond and Campbell was not there, he would say that the collection was not complete. I would not bring an accusation of insanity against any of the constituents of my hon. Friend, but I would say if all the eccentric and quarrelsome men were gathered somewhere in the United Kingdom and there


was not a single fisherman from Fraser-burgh or Buckie among them, the collection would not really be complete.
So far, the attempt to bring about a self-governing structure in the industry has not been successful, and we must still go on striving to produce it. One of the efforts which the Board must make must be to try to produce co-operation amongst the rank and file which will lead to their taking over as far as possible the administration of their industry. I do not think the co-operative societies have been very successful in that direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin will speak about that later. I fear that so far, the results have not been very good. I do not think we have yet got the proper solution for all these difficulties, and we shall simply have to go on trying.
There is no other way in which men working from year's end to year's end can produce so great a weight of food as in the fishing industry. It is the way in which the greatest amount of human food can be produced by the minimum amount of human effort. Therefore, at the present time it is of the very greatest importance. We have asked for an extension of time on this Bill, because a great number of hon. Members desire to take part in this Debate and every opportunity should be given to them to do so. It is not often we get a fishery Debate ending in action. Fishery Debates on Supply Days are all very well, but here is a piece of legislation before us. It is not often we get a chance to debate legislation for this industry, and we all want to take full advantage of it. I do not wish to stand long between the House and the further discussion on this Measure. But I am most grateful for this opportunity of addressing myself again to a subject in which, for many years, I have taken a very great interest, and which I believe offers great chances of advancement both in food production and in production of industrial raw material.
We have not yet properly exploited the harvest of the seas. In fact, it is a mistake to call it the harvest of the seas. It is the only great industry which is still a hunting industry. It is a nomadic hunting industry. How far it is possible, as I am sure it is possible, to make better use of its catches is something which remains to be seen in the years to come.
Nor do I know whether it is possible eventually to farm the seas. There are most fascinating possibilities in that. The sea is full of currents and these currents rise carrying phosphate laden waters from the lower seas on which the minute organisms in the upper waters feed. On these the fish feed. Whether it is eventually possible to reinforce these phosphate laden waters or encourage the minute organisms I cannot say. That is still far ahead in the future. But here is a great asset which has been, and is just now, of the greatest advantage to this country. Here is a great asset which is in jeopardy, increasing jeopardy, rapidly increasing jeopardy. For those reasons, this House should think it desirable to bend its utmost attention to the proposals which the Government are laying before us.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: After listening to the characteristically interesting and informed speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) I think I might perform the function of stalactite to his stalagmite in the hope that we might meet half way. There is a great deal of common interest on both sides of the House on this matter. As a special gesture, I should say that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), with whom I had a slight altercation yesterday, and whom I see opposite, has given a great deal of attention for many years to this important subject. I am not sure that the Bill is by any means one of the major steps that the Government ultimately intend to take in regard to the fishing industry. We look forward to the time, and we hope that it will not be long delayed, when we shall have a glimpse of the Government's longterm policy for the fishing industry. I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House as well as opposite will be glad and relieved when we have before us definite and practical evidence that there is to be a long-term policy shown to us and brought forward soon in the form of legislation.
I recognise that many delays are naturally bound to occur until we can reach much more international agreement, for instance, about the limitation of fishing in the North Sea, on the regulation of the size of mesh, and so forth. This Government and the previous Government have


not been backward in seeking that agreement, which has not yet been forthcoming to anything like the extent which one would have expected from responsible governments in other countries. They must know that their own interests, too, will be as vitally affected in the long run—and not so long a run—as in our own case. Everybody knows that the North Sea has for many years been over-fished. The same is true of course of more local waters, such as the Moray Firth. It has been one of the most difficult matters to get the fishermen at Moray Firth to realise that they could over-fish their particular area. The argument that should have impressed them is that it was known and is long known now that the North Sea has been over-fished. It stands to reason that a smaller area, like the Moray Firth can be largely depleted also, because of over-fishing. The general Convention agreement reached in regard to mesh control was a contribution in the right direction, but nobody can possibly say that real progress has been made towards a longterm policy until we get the ratification of such agreements as we have been able to reach on the subject.
The Bill is welcomed by all sides of the House for the obvious reason that it greatly extends the benefits and advantages the previous Act gave to fishermen and to the fishing community. It does not very greatly widen the provisions of that Act. It extends the financial provisions. I am glad, indeed, that it extends the powers, and to some extent improves the finances, of the Herring Industry Board. That is important. The nation has for many years neglected the industry very considerably and has allowed it to fall into such a condition that a long time will be needed to put it on to the healthy footing on which it ought to be. I hope that people do not get the impression generally that the Bill is a mere matter of giving away money to fishermen, for no national return; purely a matter of throwing out money without any expectation of a definite profit to the community by way of production. This is a valuable investment in assured increased future production and food supplies.
This important industry has many nationally vital aspects. One of them has repeatedly been stressed, and it is still necessary to stress it. And that is the strategic aspect. We must maintain

the community of seafaring men around our coasts and isles as a vitally important element in our strategical security. I do not want hon. Members to think in terms of the fishing community merely as a training ground for producing first-class recruits for the Navy, the Merchant Navy or the Minesweeping Fleets. The seafaring men have their use to the nation in producing food at all times. It is in terms of their usefulness and rights as citizens, and not merely as emergency fighting forces in wartime, that I want the country and the House to regard them.
What we are arranging to do by the Bill, and by other such Measures as they come along, is to make a first-class investment in a first-class section of our community. We are not proposing blind subsidies, without check or return, as many subsidies have gone out in the past. I must say immediately that while fishermen have their local difficulties and there are still national difficulties in the industry, I have never known the industry more prosperous from the point of view of the fisherman who is fishing full time than it is just now. The men are doing reasonably well, and from the average fisherman there is normally little complaint. Loans and grants have been available to him for equipping himself, subject to a test of his needs, with boats and gear upon a generous scale. One acknowledges that very considerable efforts were made by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Tom Johnston, and his successor, also.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member said a moment ago that the fishermen are well satisfied with their conditions, including their gear. Does he not know that great difficulty has been experienced for 18 months by many of them in connection with getting their fishing gear?

Mr. MacMillan: The hon. and gallant Member is referring to the question of the adequacy of the supplies of gear. I was saying that they are more satisfied with the returns from the industry than they have been for many years. That is what I know to be true of the West Coast. In regard to the assistance which they have been given in the form of loans and grants for the supply of boats and gear, I think the fishermen are reasonably content with the grants, as being generous and fairly


adequate in most cases. The total amount of the assistance has not been large enough. The Bill certainly helps in that matter. The average fisherman has not had very much of a kick on that account.
But I do agree with the hon. and gallant Member opposite in regard to supply of gear, generally, because I think that much more ought to have been done in the past. Two years ago was the time when a lot of trouble could have been avoided. The export of cotton and machinery for the spinning of nets should not have taken place. Much of that machinery could have been useful at home. The whole matter could have been handled a great deal better than it was handled at that time. I acknowledge the immediate short-term value to this country of such exports, which might have been more immediately valuable to this country in hard currency; but we found ourselves as a result not many months afterwards importing fish from countries to which we had sent a great deal of equipment and nets that our men would have been able to use for catching fish here. It has been very difficult to make our men understand this kind of transaction, and I am afraid that many of them do not understand the matter yet. We are beginning to see an easing now of the situation in which fishermen found themselves, then, waiting between 18 months and two years to get spare parts and service for their engines. The situation has considerably improved.
The Bill does not do a number of things. It ignores the provision of assistance for and the tackling of the problem of building and reconstruction of piers, harbours and jetties. We shall not get the maximum production from the industry until harbours and piers and even local jetties are brought up to date. The Bill does not provide for anything like that. A Bill may provide for many things but if it does not include that provision it is lacking in something very important. We trust that this matter is being looked at from the broadest national point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) has already tried to "discipline the Scots element." We are prepared to challenge him at any time to a marine Bannockburn.
I cannot over-emhasise how much harm has been done to this country by the loss of food production and the loss of our very best type of citizen, through neglect of local harbours and the equipment of the places where men have to land their catches, shelter their boats, and even have to live. I hope that the Government will tackle this question as a matter of first class priority even under the restricted capital investment programme. Just now, the emphasis is essentially upon economy, but it is a false economy if we allow any further dilapidation—I emphasise the word "further"—in the facilities of our harbours and piers which serve our fishing industry.
I have a number of local questions which I wanted to put to the Secretary of State, but in deference to other hon. Members who want to speak and whose time is as limited as mine I will pass over them. I have written on many occasions about these matters to the Scottish Office and I still find it difficult to get from the Department just that sense of urgency in giving a decision on these matters, which are of first class importance in food production and to our fishing population.
There are one or two things in the Bill to which I should like to make a brief special reference. On the financing of co-operatives some provision might be made by way of grants for certain forms of capital equipment. I do not see any real reason why, if a project is good enough for a loan, which can be got from a bank, it should not qualify for some percentage of grant. After all, it would be a good investment. We can afford to be generous where a project commends itself to responsible authorities upon the Herring Industry Board and in the Government Department concerned.
I welcome again the extension of the powers of the Herring Industry Board. Very many people have been inclined to criticise the board, but I think the board have tried to do a good job of work within the limit of their powers. There was a desire that the board should not come on a very large scale into the industry, possibly to the detriment of certain private interests in the industry. I hope that the time will come when the board will be the greatest single organisation for all purposes in the herring industry. I would like to see something done—whether it could be done in this Bill


or not I do not quite know—for the revival of the White Fish Commission. We shall have to face that issue sooner or later, and the sooner the better.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend might give me his attention for the last three quarters of a minute while I ask him why the question of transport for white fish and lobster has not been tackled. I will drop the white fish, just now, and will concentrate on lobsters. One of the complaints in almost every fishing village around the North-East and North-West coast and especially in the Islands is about the loss of this highly perishable and very important foodstuff from delays in transit. The transport system for bringing fresh fish straight to market—especially in the case of highly perishable lobsters—is obsolete and neglected. Fishermen have lost hundreds of pounds during each of the last few seasons. Overall they have made thousands, but individuals have repeatedly lost sums of £10 to £20 throughout the summer because of the lack of proper transport.
We shall be told that research is being made into packing and containers. If the right hon. Gentleman is yet again thinking out this stock answer, "research" is probably the right word. We have been waiting for 10 years for a practical answer and the right answer and we have still not got it. I know that there are possibilities in what are called by some "iced-end containers," but the question of use of insulated vans "drikold" and the rest must be speeded up. The sooner we tackle the losses of our fishermen through lobsters perishing in transport the better. It is most unfair to ask the fishermen to fish all out and try to put their fish on the market in a first class condition if they are losing money as they go along. I hope that most serious consideration will be given to the recommendations of that group of the Highlands and Islands Panel which is under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Alex. Anderson). That will lead to a happier lobster fishing community.
I welcome this Bill although I should have liked to see a much tougher Measure and the powers of the Herring Industry Board extended very considerably and their minimum authority as far as possible defined so that they would know just how far they can or cannot go. Overall the Bill is good. It is an improvement on

the last one. It will serve the immediate purpose of giving new heart to the men who are waiting to acquire boats, engines and gear to the national benefit. I am confident that there will be an early reflection of it in increased production. May I just again stress that the Secretary of State might well consider putting into operation assistance by way of grants as well as loans at places where co-operative schemes have come into being, as at Eyemouth and Arbroath, on the initiative of the local people and with the assistance and encouragement of the Joint Under-Secretary. We rather refute the suggestion that the fishermen will not co-operate now. Wherever we have put our Highlands and Islands Panel's plans for the lobster fishing industry before the fishermen we have found them most anxious to co-operate. They have learned the lessons of past anarchy and non-co-operation and they are now willing, with responsible supervision and organisation, to put under way the co-operative schemes put up to them. I hope the Government will be able to yield and help us by making not only loans but grants as well.

5.19 p.m.

Lady Grant: I am very glad indeed to welcome this Bill, particularly as it affects the white fish industry. In company with the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), I should have liked to see a rather tougher Measure. I should have liked to see the provisions of this Bill considerably widened. I agree with him that it is, in a way, a courageous Measure, particularly as it affects the extension of grants to fishermen, when in the country generally there has been such a wide cut in capital investment. I, therefore, regret having in any way to qualify my remarks of appreciation, and I trust that the Secretary of State will realise that any remarks I make are more in the nature of inquiry than criticism, on this occasion at any rate.
Clause 2 and the licensing provision will be very much welcomed in the port of Aberdeen because that port has suffered considerably from over-fishing in the past. I can well remember immature fish being landed in Aberdeen in thousands of tons, with the result that in time our fishing grounds were depleted and our boats had to search further afield in


order to reap their harvest or, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said, to hunt their quarry to the kill. In consequence, our boats have had to go out on longer journeys and when they have returned the fish has been in very poor condition largely due to the inadequate arrangements for freezing on our trawlers.
I hope that the agreement regarding the size of mesh will be adhered to. Boats have been known to leave port with one kind of net and, perhaps inadvertently, to fish with another. I must confess that I am very disturbed at the lack of decision about the appointed day when the Clauses regarding the licensing of boats and their limitations come into effect. I noticed from the White Paper issued this month that certain governments, notably those of Belgium, Denmark, Eire, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland, have not agreed to the recommendations of the International Over-Fishing Conference. The Secretary of State says that he hopes they will soon agree, but I should like a very specific assurance that the appointed day will not be long distant. If we control and inspect our boats and foreign countries have a rather vacillating policy regarding their own, we ought to consider how best the British trawling industry can he protected not only from foreign competition at sea, but also from foreign competition on land.
In consequence, I want to say a word or two about foreign landings. As the Secretary of State will no doubt remember, during the last two years there have been considerable stoppages of work in the trawling industry in connection with the foreign dumping of fish. We have had trouble in Aberdeen and there have also been stoppages at Grimsby and Hull. The argument has always been that where an excessive amount of foreign fish is landed in our ports, it depresses the demand for our own fish and therefore depreciates the earnings of our people. In Aberdeen in July, 1945, the Skippers and Mates Association petitioned the Harbour Board to ask whether provision could be made for any British ships docking at the fish market before 4 p.m. to have priority of berthing, after which time

any space left would be allotted to foreign ships. After due consideration of all the evidence the Harbour Board acceded to that request and a by-law was passed to that effect. That had a favourable influence upon the stoppages of work through foreign dumping of fish, as has also the Ministry's policy of reviewing the ceiling quantities of landed fish at different intervals.
It is true that we do not want to see all foreign fish barred. This country is very appreciative of the high quality of certain boxed fish landed by foreign boats. I particularly recall certain Danish products which are of a very high condition—I should say a very good condition, and not "high." On the other hand, I remember the literally high state of some of the cargoes of fish landed in Aberdeen by carrier boats coming from the Faroes. Such cargoes have frequently been condemned at once on landing. All our efforts and the provisions of this Bill ought to be directed towards maintaining the quality of fish even more than the quantity, because if anyone goes down to a fish market and sees great quantities of green and putrid fish, that is not only a discouragement to the industry but it is enough to put one off that form of food for months. I remember a certain experience I underwent with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). It was an occasion during a by-election in South Aberdeen, and my hon. Friend and I, at the early hour of 7 a.m., went down to the fish market and delivered an address not to a human audience but to rows and rows of green and sightless cod—putrid and condemned.
The subject of foreign landings is a hardy annual, and therefore one regrets that this Bill is not wide enough and does not incorporate legislation to deal with this fundamental and recurring problem. This is by no means a new suggestion. In July, 1946, a court of inquiry was called under the chairmanship of Mr. John Forster to examine the causes and circumstances of the stoppages of work in the trawling industry. After many recommendations, that court of inquiry specifically recommended that a committee should be formed to undertake a comprehensive investigation of the industry as a whole. They considered that one section of the industry could not be tackled without very great repercussions on all


the others and that because it was such a complex industry, it ought to be examined as a whole. They went so far as to enumerate the many factors which operated, and said that among them were
the method of operating the control of the selling price of fish, the nature and locality of the fishing grounds and the need for their preservation … the policy of the Government in regard to the importation of foreign caught fish; the financial return afforded to the port wholesaler, the inland wholesaler and the retailer under the price control scheme of the Ministry of Food; and the elasticity, speed and efficiency of the machinery of distribution.
They therefore came unanimously to the decision that there should be set up immediately a body which would give detailed and exhaustive examination to these problems—a body
appointed jointly by those Ministries whose province it is to deal with the various aspects of the fishing industry as a whole.
I should like to ask why it is that two years after this report was issued, although there have been many stoppages in the industry which have greatly undermined its efficiency, the recommendations of the Forster Report have not been implemented? We all know the many pleas which have been made in this House for a White Fish Commission, and, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for the Western Isles, we all recall the continuous pleas made by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) on the subject with his characteristic fortitude. The last time he raised the matter in this House was in a Debate on the Adjournment in November last year, when he received a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to the effect that they were afraid that they could give my hon. Friend no comfort but that the Minister and his colleagues were looking very closely into the matter. Might I ask, with due respect, whether it is not time that the Government ceased only to contemplate and resorted also to activity. This Bill is presumably designed to maintain prosperity in the industry and thus ensure a cheap and plentiful supply of food to the consumer. I suggest that the grants incorporated in this Bill will not be utilised to the full unless the insecurity and doubt which surrounds the industry are to a large extent removed.
To sum up, I would say that I welcome the Bill, but one feels that it does

not go far enough, that the root causes of discontent and disturbance in the industry have not been properly examined, and that if they are not so examined quickly, it will mean once again that the consumer will have to be confronted with a food which varies in price and quality. That in turn will again depreciate the demand, and we shall see the vicious spiral with us once again. Lastly, I hope that the Secretary of State will follow up this Bill with further provisions on a more imaginative and speedy scale because we are dealing with what is at this time one of our fundamental and most important industries at this time, an industry the products and the men of which have served us very well in the past, and to whom I suggest we should now pay tribute by endeavouring to ensure greater stability and hope for the future.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I rise with a good deal of diffidence as a mere Englishman to support this Bill. I am sure that its provisions will prove valuable, as has been exemplified already by the speeches made and by the general acceptance of all Members who have the interests of the fishing industry at heart and all others who appreciate what a great contribution it makes to the economic life of this country and to our food supplies. I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant), and to note that she is demanding more controls than ever in the landings of foreign fish, inspection and all the paraphernalia that must attach to direction by the Minister of Food. I agree with her and with other speakers in supporting this Bill generally, but I agree that it does not go far enough. I hope to deal a little later with those reservations.
I am very glad to see that not only are the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries sponsoring this Bill, but also the Minister of Food, who has a prime interest in distribution and the control of the price level, factors which are of the highest importance. While they are given no weight in the Bill, nor even mentioned, those elements are so important in relation to the question of the accessibility of fish to the housewife that without the most complete co-ordination


and co-operation between the Departments of Food and Fisheries conditions might degenerate into a chaotic state and could become more unsatisfactory than they are at present. I wish that the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade were also included as supporters, because their responsibilities are real and their success or non-success in negotiating with foreign countries will prove to have important effects on the prosperity of the industry, particularly in the conservation of the fishing beds and also on the ultimate stability of the herring industry itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) has mentioned the question of transport. There is no reference in this Bill to the necessary facilities of quick transport from the ports to the great markets. Everyone will agree that that is of the most vital importance in order to maintain on the fishmongers' slabs, fish in a fresh condition so that it will be acceptable to the housewife. Without variety, without good quality and without freshness there is no form of diet against which the ordinary person reacts so readily as fish, and we must not disguise that fact. The best inducements to building up a fish-eating community are good quality and good variety. That is why it is so important that when fish is landed it should become readily available in an acceptable condition. I do not think it is realised by the general public how large a part the fishing industry plays in the economic life of this country. Reference has already been made in this Debate to the importance of fish in supplementing the diet of the people, but when it is realised that in 1947 British takings were 19,872,000 cwts., of a value of over £41½ million, to which must be added foreign imports of 4¼ million cwts., valued at £12½ million, we can realise the great importance of this industry to our economic life.
It is appropriate that the first Clause of this Bill deals with one aspect of over-fishing but it is important to remember that it is only one aspect of the problem. Hon. Members will remember the recommendations of the International Conference on Over-fishing in 1946, some of which have been examined, but only this one has been put into this Bill. Over-fishing is one of the major anxieties of

the industry. It is a present and real anxiety, which is based, as has already been said, on historic experience. We have already had two Debates on the Adjournment in this Parliament, one initiated by myself in June last year, the other by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) in November, and at that time we both laid before the Minister figures which showed clearly and conclusively that we were heading for disaster. We are taking out of the North Sea not only too much fish but, what is infinitely worse, we are taking fish so small, so immature, that we are killing millions of potential parents of fish and the ultimate source of supply. We have failed to learn, as indeed we have failed in so many other instances, the bitter and costly lesson of the inter-war years.
I will trouble the House with a few figures of this subject, because it is indeed important that the conditions should be fully realised by everyone. I will deal only with demersal fish taken from the North Sea, excluding Scotland, and I will go back to a period before the first world war. In 1914 we landed 2,869,000 cwt. Then for four years, as the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has said, these waters were rested. The drifters and the trawlers were engaged in other occupations. Fish multiplied and were allowed to grow to spawning age, and the sea became well stocked. By 1919 there was an ample supply of fish of good quality and wide variety of choice. Intensive fishing took place. In 1920 the catch was 4½ million cwt. and continued at that high pressure. Development in the industry was rapid through the inter-war period. The great steam trawler was developed to an extent that it could do the work of quite a number of the smaller boats of the early part of the century. In 1924 the catch had dropped to 2½ million cwt. In 1932 it was just over 2 million cwt., and in 1938 it had fallen to less than 1½ million cwt., about one-third of the catch of 1920. So the bottom was really knocked out of the North Sea fisheries. In addition to that, in seven years after the first world war the percentage of fish landed and recorded as small, that is immature, increased in respect of cod by 32 per cent., haddock 83 per cent., plaice 72 per cent. and soles 41 per cent.
What is happening today? After the six years' rest during the war it was confidently predicted that there would be no serious overfishing of the North Sea for a decade. Yet already there are the clearest signs that such a calamity, for calamity it is, cannot be long delayed. In 1946, and I am sorry to have to quote figures again, we landed from the same source—the North Sea, and again excluding Scotland—2,059,000 cwt. In 1947 that figure receded to 1,791,000 cwt., in spite of a large increase in the number of first-class landings, of which there were 2,307. Yet the aggregate catch was so considerably less, and the position in regard to hake, as has already been stated, was particularly acute. In January, 1946, 75,000 cwt. were landed, mostly in West Coast ports. In January, 1947, the catch had dropped to 33,000 cwt., less than half, and those figures are only instances of the general trend.
The cause is plain. As has been stated already by hon. Members—it cannot be stressed too often—it is the taking of immature fish, and in the case of the Western waters in which the hon. Member for Bodmin is so interested, we know very well that it is the intensive fishing of the Spaniards with their own peculiar methods. It is gratifying to find, therefore, that in Clauses 1 and 2 measures are to be taken to increase the size of mesh, although many of the participants in the International Conference, and many in the Convention, thought that the size as suggested was even then too small. No mention is made in this Bill of the other methods of conservation, that is to say, restricting certain areas of the North Sea, restricting the size of the fleet, and giving rest days or rest periods. None of these seem to have been considered. I do not know whether that is because there is no hope of getting agreement to these rather more drastic proposals on the part of the other nations which are interested.
I would like some clarification of the licensing proposals. I assume that they are designed to give some control over the number of vessels, that is to say we shall be able to limit the number of vessels which shall go out, and that we shall not increase the fishing fleet beyond the capacity of the seas to produce the fish. Otherwise we are again heading for an intensity of fishing which the seas cannot

maintain. I should also like to see in the Bill a provision dealing with the condition of the working fishermen, and there is no mention of it as far as I can see, except in so far as the Bill relates to loans and co-operatives. I hope that when licenses are considered the amenities of the working fishermen will be considered. That is to say, in trawlers, and drifters there should be a minimum standard of requirements in regard to sleeping, cooking, lavatory and washing, and particularly drying accommodation. It is time we got down seriously to considering the working conditions of the men who are actually going to catch the fish.
In regard to Clause 2, Subsection (6) of the Bill, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it would be a grave hardship to the British fishing industry if, at the time when we are going to increase the size of our mesh we should permit landings from foreign boats which are not subscribing to these conditions. I sincerely hope that, before we decide on the appointed day, we shall have regard to the nations who were represented at the Conference and who signed the original Convention. I understand it has not been ratified by the important ones, Belgium, Eire, France, Iceland, Portugal and Spain, and before we insist on implementing these regulations we should get something much more specific from them as to the ratification on their part. I believe that most of these countries are alive to the danger, but in view of the grave food shortage on the Continent it is quite natural that they should take a shortsighted view of their responsibilities in this direction.
Even in Spain, where the attitude hitherto to this extensive form of over-fishing has not been critical, it is being realised how dangerous is the policy of catching immature fish. I quote from a Spanish fishing journal, "Industries Pesqueras," an article on, 15th January, 1948, in which it is said:
what is intolerable is taking complete, or almost complete hauls at the expense of fishing without a minimum commercial size.
There is a very long article on this question and it is gratifying to find that the Spaniards who—as I am sure the hon. Member for Bodmin will agree—are almost the worst sinners, are beginning to realise how this policy is coming home to


them, and that they will eventually suffer very seriously from it. In securing the ratification of the Convention agreed by the International Conference the interest of the Foreign Secretary should be sought.
I consider that this is a good Bill, with certain reservations. It should be made wholly illegal to permit the landing of immature fish which, because of its size, does not command the control price and is being sold for manure. In March of this year 6,000 stones of fish, mostly dabs and plaice, although perfectly edible was disposed of at one of our ports as manure. In order to maintain higher prices this fish was not allowed to come into the consumers' market and the price was kept up by creating an artificial scarcity. The remedy would be—and here I hope the Minister of Food will examine the position—to put the first hand price so low on undersized fish that it would not pay to fish that area off the Dutch coast, and so save what a friend of mine, a great authority on fishing, has called "The slaughter of the innocents." There is no doubt that the temptation to skippers to supplement their catches with "smalls" is a natural one, and the temptation should be removed from them. The breeding grounds would be safeguarded and the fish would have a chance to grow to full size and become, in turn, parents of other fish.
The trade is seriously concerned at the increase of buyers at the ports. There is no question that the removal of the restricted licence last year has brought into the ports a number of persons who are not at all qualified for the job. They are going there in the hope that they will make quick money in the artificial conditions in which the fishing industry is working today. They are a hindrance to themselves and a nuisance to the old established people there. It is time that the Minister of Food looked at this matter again. On the question of foreign landings, I agree with the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant), that it is causing a great deal of disquiet, and there ought to be some ratio worked out by which foreign landings could be adjusted in some measure to the home supply and home needs. I admit that it is a difficult matter to tackle, but it should be attempted.
On those Clauses dealing with grants to inshore fishermen and co-operatives, I do not propose to say anything. The system of co-operatives on my part of the coast does not seem to have attracted the fishermen, and in that we lag behind. I hope that with the encouragement that will now be given, they may be induced to come in rather less reluctantly. I welcome the desire of the Minister to give increased power to the Herring Industry Board. The twelfth annual report of the Herring Industry Board is well documented, thoughtful and, I think, realistic. In spite of great shortages of material and skilled labour, steady progress has been maintained since the end of the war. There are, however, the gravest immediate difficulties to be overcome, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will take notice of what I am sure will be the general demand of most hon. Members who speak in this Debate, which is to examine this question of gear, and particularly nets. It is of the most urgent importance. It is having a crippling effect and must be solved if the industry is to be maintained at an effective level.
A great deal of the Herring Industry Report is concerned with experimental devices that have to meet shortages, particularly the shortage of timber. It is important, if the industry is to develop, or even maintain its present standard, that the question of containers should be tackled. All the experiments in regard to the ancillary processes show that the Board is facing the problems that it will have to meet. I think it has the cooperation of the industry to a very large extent, but there is no doubt that it will have to do more in reconciling some of the more difficult elements in the industry.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles twitted me a few months ago because I suggested in the House that the Board should have greater powers of discipline. I admit I said that the Scottish fishermen in the industry require rather more discipline. It was all very well for Scottish Members to jeer at me when I said it. I got a great deal of notoriety out of it and some very abusive letters, but I still maintain that, if the industry is to function well, the Herring Board should have certain disciplinary powers; that is to say, that when they are flagrantly flouted, and when their instructions are flouted, they should be able to impose some sort of sanctions. I


am not suggesting what the sanctions should be, but there is a great need for better co-operation between elements in the industry.
I believe that there is in this country a greater home market for the herring than is realised. One of the reasons is that very few inland people know how to cook a herring. I would suggest that one of the activities of the Herring Board should be to show people how to cook a herring. I also make the suggestion that hon. Members do not know what a herring really tastes like. The Kitchen Committee should bring in a housewife from Lowestoft to show us what a herring really tastes like, and I hope that one of their main priorities will be the elimination of that dietetic abomination, the dyed kipper. It is a great pity that the Russian market was not regained. That was no fault of the President of the Board of Trade, but I do hope that we shall be able to regain those markets in Eastern Europe for certain forms of herring. I give this Bill a very warm welcome. I agree with those Members who think it should go a great deal further, but I hope that this will be the first of a number of Measures to deal with this great, expanding and most beneficent industry.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: I certainly welcome this Measure, though I hardly feel that it is possible to give it what is called a hearty Cornish welcome, because my experience is that there is something slightly sinister when a Measure of this sort is introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that amiable and competent figure, and welcomed by the right hon. and gallant Member who sits for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and who, I hope, will sit for many years. At any rate, I am in a position to welcome this Measure not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of the Federation of English and Welsh Inshore Fishermen. How I do wish they were not called inshore fishermen, because there are hon. Members of this House, and members of the public, who think that an inshore fisherman is somebody with a little boat who goes out a few miles, whereas he is a hold and brave adventurer, who goes out 20, 50, nay, 80 miles in a small boat to catch fresh fish and not some of these Icelandic monstrosities which have been foisted on the public.
I was very interested to hear, after all the excellent Scottish speeches, the speech from the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) because he mentioned the matter of Spain. This is a matter of great importance. I ask the Minister, "Is there a real prospect of international agreement on the subject of the regulation of the mesh?" Over-fishing, in the main, happens outside the three-mile limit, and I may tell him that the fishermen will not be satisfied if there is to be a one-sided regulation of the mesh. Have we invited the Spaniards to confer with us on this matter? I want an answer, "yes" or "no." When I was last in the Isles of Scilly, I saw five Spanish fishing boats there, and I know that, quite recently, Spaniards have been fishing off the coast of Ireland. I hope that political feeling about Spain will not prevent us from conferring with the Spaniards on a subject about which, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft has pointed out, the Spaniards themselves feel deeply, and in which, I feel sure, they would be willing to cooperate.
Next, I want to ask the Minister whether the Government are approaching the French Government, because at the moment the French are undoubtedly among the chief offenders in catching immature fish. If there is to be a regulation of the mesh, there must be notice, and I want it to be made quite clear that there will be at least 12 months' notice before the mesh is changed. Nowadays, a net is a very expensive matter and very often difficult to procure, and, if there is not to be proper notice, there will have to be compensation. I would also like to say a few words about licences. I am not quite sure to what boats licences will apply, but I say to the Minister that there is no reason whatever why there should be any licences for long-liners, because the damage is done, not by long-liners, but by trawlers. I would like to ask specifically what size of boat will be allowed to operate without a licence. I do not feel at all clear on that matter. If it is to be 40 feet, I should say that was too little, and I should like it to be stated that any boat up to 75 feet could operate without a licence.
On the subject of grants, while I naturally welcome the increases that have been made, I take the opportunity to say that it is time we did away with the


means test in this matter. There are fishermen who have a little money put by, but who cannot afford, none the less—

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Palestine Act, 1948.
2. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1948.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: A short while ago I was applying the rod to the Government in regard to the means test which, up to now, has been applied to fishermen seeking loans or grants for boats, and I was saying that I hoped that, now that gear and the building of boats had become so expensive, there would be no more of this means test, and that fishermen, even if they had saved a few hundred pounds, would be helped by means of a grant. I would like also to say that I think these grants have been applied to boats which have been too small, in England, at any rate. What happens in Scotland I do not know, except that the Scots have much more money than we have. The subvention should be available for boats up to 75 feet, and, incidentally, I may say that the Admiralty have some motor vessels of 75 feet which our fishermen would like to have, and this limitation seems to be a very great mischief.
There is only one other matter to which I would like to refer. This Measure makes provision for financial assistance in the extraction of oil from herrings, and I have no objection to that, but I cannot understand, after all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) and myself, why there should be no similar assistance for people obtaining oil from pilchards. There is a long history over many generations of the use

of oil from pilchards, and we know perfectly well that it can be used for nutritional purpose and also for various commercial operations, such as leather dressing. One feels more and more that matters such as this are weighted in favour of the herring industry which is in fact, though not quite in form, a Scottish institution. I have raised a number of matters and there are others such as breakwaters, and harbours with which I should like to deal; but I feel if we could have a clarification on the matters I have raised this measure will take us at any rate a little way further along the road which we wish to take.

6.16 p.m.

Miss Colman: I think every Member who has so far spoken in this Debate has welcomed this Bill—I certainly do so—but they have said it does not go far enough, and I feel the same. It does not touch the white fish side of the industry which is, of course, very much more important in value than the herring side, except in so far as it attempts to prevent over-fishing. Apart from that, it leaves that side of the industry entirely alone. The attempt to prevent over-fishing is, of course, very warmly welcomed, but I find, as again I think every hon. Member who has spoken today has said, that there is great anxiety in the industry about the delay in bringing the convention, the international agreement, into operation. What it amounts to is that, presumably, we are getting more food now, but we shall get less food in the future as a result of over-fishing. Neither we nor the rest of the world can afford that. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply, he may be able to give us some assurance that every possible effort is being made to secure agreement for international action.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) suggested that, when the international agreement comes into force, the landing of immature fish by foreign boats at British ports should be prohibited. It has been suggested to me that in the meantime, before the convention is implemented, this step might be taken and that the landing of immature fish by both British and foreign boats at British ports might be prohibited. For instance, on the North East coast, there has been a considerable amount of landing of immature fish by Danish and Swedish boats. I


understand regulations are actually in existence by which this could be prevented, but at present they are not being enforced. On that point I hope the Minister will be able to give us some information.
I also find that there is a good deal of anxiety about Clause 2 (1) of the Bill, which relates to exceptions. It is feared that if considerable exceptions are allowed that may defeat the object of the Clause. Other hon. Members have asked for information on this point and I also would ask for it. To quote again the hon. Member for Lowestoft, he suggested that if any conditions are being laid down for the granting of licences, one of them might be the provision of proper accommodation for the crew. I would like to support that suggestion and, here again, I hope we may have some information as to what conditions, if any, are likely to be laid down in the granting of licences and whether such a condition as has been suggested could be considered.
I turn for a few moments to what appears to me—and I am sure it will appear to every Member of the House—to be the principal need of the industry, and that is a steady market. The increased grant for converting herrings into oil will help to provide a steady market for herrings and, as a consequence, it is welcome, although possibly it may be considered that the price of 35s. a cran, although it has been increased from 30s., is still too low when compared with what I think is the price of 89s. 10d. which is secured for kippering and freshing. The extra grant for the conversion of herrings into oil is only one comparatively small item in what I consider to be the greatest problem which we have to face—that of providing a steady market for both the white fish and the herring sides of the industry.
One of the chief points in this, so far as my experience goes at least, is the unsatisfied demand which exists particularly in the inland markets. One can go into a number of places now, particularly in the country districts, and find one often cannot get fish at all or, if it can be obtained, it is not fresh. There is a big demand in that market, and if we could distribute fish quickly in a good condition we should be doing more than we can in any other way, I am sure, to provide the steady

demand which is necessary for the products of the industry.
If I may quote my own Division, in the last two seasons we have had gluts of herrings in North Shields. The herring fleet has been laid up, the number of drifters sailing from the port has been reduced and the number of nets per boat has been reduced in order to cope with the glut, while at the same time we have an unsatisfied demand for herrings inland. I had hoped that measures would be taken by the Government to deal with this problem of better distribution of fish in good condition. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) mentioned the possibility of setting up a white fish commission, and I think that others are thinking on those lines.
I hope this Bill is only the first instalment and that the Government will go a great deal further and will take steps in the near future, in co-operation with the industry, for the purpose of improving the distribution of both white fish and herring. We have delays in transport, we have too many middle-men, and we have the short-period problem—the shortage of barrels and boxes. We also have—and this, I am sure, militates against the sale of fish—very bad conditions in many fish shops. In many cases the fish is exposed to dirt and dust from the roads. I suggest to the Ministry of Food that that should be prohibited as soon as possible. It is quite unhygienic to sell fish which has been exposed in that way and, unless fish is offered for sale in a really good condition, people will not be encouraged to buy it.
The main point I want to make is that the industry needs a steady market. A step has been taken by increasing the grant for conversion of herrings to oil, but if we tackle the problem of distribution, of getting fish in good condition and larger quantities into the inland market in particular, we should be doing the biggest thing we could to provide this steady market for the products of the industry. There are two practical points I want to make on which I should like to have a reply from the Minister. The first is that a great deal has been said, not merely in this Debate but on many other occasions, about quick-freezing. It


has been suggested that quick-freezing is the solution to the problem of distribution in good condition—

Mr. Boothby: Hear, hear.

Miss Colman: But I am not quite so sure. I have discussed the matter with an expert and the chief value of experts in this connection has been that we get differing views from them, and the expert with whom I have discussed the matter has expressed the opinion that there are serious disadvantages in quick-freezing. He suggests that the fish deteriorates in quality very quickly once it is thawed, and that is a great handicap to the ordinary housewife.

Sir David Robertson: He is no expert.

Miss Colman: Oh, yes; he is an expert.

Mr. Boothby: I apologise for interrupting, but I beg the hon. Lady to believe that he was very little of an expert.

Miss Colman: I must point out to the hon. Member that the expert to whom I am referring is a practical man. This is his view and I am not putting it forward as my view. This is one view—that the fish deteriorates quickly once it is thawed and that is a disadvantage for the ordinary housewife who has not a refrigerator. Further, quick-freezing greatly increases the cost, and when the fish is thawed it loses much of its natural juices. This seems to be a point for further investigation, and I hope the Minister may give his views and those of his experts on it. I am quite sure that we shall also have the views of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby).
The second practical point I wish to raise is that there appears to be room for more white fish and herring processing factories. I would like to ask what is being done. May I give just one small illustration? We are finding there is a good market in the United States for canned kippers, not dyed. They are being exported in increasing quantities and we are finding a good market in the United States. Those are two practical questions to which I hope I may have an answer.
May I conclude by saying, as was said by the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant) that the one thing we have

to avoid is any return to the conditions of the inter-war years, which were described by the Sea Fish Commission in 1936 in these words:
It is clear that there is not in this important food product a remunerative return to the producer, or a satisfactory result in quality and price to the consumer.
Those were the conditions in the interwar years, and we sincerely hope that this Bill is an instalment in a series of measures which will prevent their return.

6.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: During the past two or three weeks, since this Bill was published, I have been round among the fishermen, and those connected with the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, in an endeavour to find out their opinions of this Bill. The general comment that I heard expressed was in favour of the Bill, and the only complaint was that it did not go far enough. The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke about larger boats, and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) touched on the question of transport and harbours. Transport, of course, is one of our serious pre-occupations. After all, the herrings which will be landed next month and in August at Portavogie and Ardglass will have to go by rail or lorry up to Belfast, and then across to Glasgow or Heysham on the night boat, so that before they get to the consumer they have a long journey across the sea. One of the fishermen I spoke to said, "What you are doing is nothing. If only we could get good transport."
On our side the harbours are not available for quick transport in the same way as at places like Aberdeen or Lowestoft, because our boats are only 50 ft. or 60 ft. long, with a 5 ft. 6 in. draft; none of our harbours is big enough or deep enough to take a much bigger boat—a fish carrier to go quickly to Fleetwood or Glasgow. If in the future, when cement and steel are available, something could be done, either to improve the existing harbours or to build new harbours, that would be extremely popular with the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. I realise that with shortage of materials, that is impossible at the present time. Although our boats in Northern Ireland rarely, if ever, go to the North Sea to fish, we are still interested in this Bill and in over-fishing in the North Sea. Many


boats come from Scotland, from Lossiemouth and Buckie, and other places, to Ardglass for the herring fishing season, and we are very glad to welcome them. But at times, in Belfast and in the rest of Northern Ireland, the only fish in our fish shops comes from the North Sea, so that over-fishing in the North Sea affects us, as consumers, as it does every consumer in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Although Northern Ireland is excluded from two Clauses, I realise that we still get financial assistance in other ways. It is given by the Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland; but as we pay the same taxes, and the same for our cigarettes and beer, this money comes out of the general taxation collected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Curiously enough, when an ex-Service man wants a loan to buy a new fishing boat, he obtains it from the Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland; but when an ex-Service man wants a loan to buy a second-hand boat, he has to apply to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries at Westminster. The other day I heard of a man who wished to buy a 60 ft. boat, drawing a 6 ft. draft, and the Ministry over here said that it was too large for the Northern Ireland harbours. Well, in other places in the fishing industry they would think that was a very small boat. I only mention that to illustrate the lack of proper fishing harbour facilities in Northern Ireland.
Clause 5 (1) is an excellent provision. In the old days—consumers might say, "the good old days," but fishermen might call them "the bad old days"—of cheap food, I can remember when one could buy a bucketful of herrings on the quay for 6d. Those days have gone for ever. People who in those days did not seem to care for fresh herrings, now appreciate them as a great delicacy.
In the scientific development of herring oil or meal, we in Northern Ireland are very much behind England and Scotland. In fact, our fish processing industry is only in embryo; it is only a baby, and has hardly been developed at all yet. Last year I received certain complaints about the fish-curing industry; but one should always take some of these complaints with a grain of salt. I understand that an official of the Ministry of Food diverted herrings from a curing factory at Portavogie to one at Ardglass. However,

until one has heard both sides of the story it is not safe to come to an immediate conclusion. I am informed by all fishermen that the cost of gear—ropes, nets, spare parts for engines, and so on—has gone up 500 per cent. since 1939. Although the price of herrings has been pretty good, and although the clever and most energetic fishermen have made money, the cost of gear is going up all the time; it is very expensive and extremely hard to obtain.
I am sorry that on the scientific development side the Bill does not include such things as lobsters. I am told that in the Isle of Man the lobster industry is far ahead of the lobster industry in the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I understand that in the Isle of Man it is a very serious offence to take a berried lobster. Perhaps the Minister would inform us whether it is an offence in this country also.
I see that in Clause 9 money is being given to pay the Minister's Department for the work they do. I have had what I might call third-hand complaints from some of the civil servants who are being sent out long distances from London to conferences at the Caledonian Hotel in Edinburgh. My information is that about 10 officials were sent up there, when the civil servants themselves said that three would have been enough for the conference. They were, of course, taken away from their other work, which accumulated in their absence. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman could make inquiries, and take steps to prevent these civil servants from being sent such long distances to stay in Edinburgh, and being taken away from their offices in London. Speaking for those with whom I have spoken in the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, I can promise the Minister a welcome for the Bill, and hearty co-operation in the working of it. I only hope that he will soon introduce a Bill for the improvement of our smaller fishing harbours.

6.40 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Like most hon. Members who have already spoken, I give very hearty support to this Measure. We on this side feel that this is a beginning, and we hope that one of these days, through this Government, we shall have more extensive Measures introduced


to build up the white fish and herring industry into one of accepted importance amongst our people—that importance which we who know something about the industry realise it ought to have in our economy.
Today, we have had a fair mixture of speakers from North and South of the Border. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), the former Secretary of State for Scotland, was even kind enough to say, "This is by no means a Scottish industry." It is indeed by no means a Scottish industry. On more than one occasion in this House I have maintained that most of the herrings we eat—badly cooked as they are in places like London, or well processed as they are in the form of bloaters in Yarmouth, or canned and sold to the United States—are caught in English waters. I am always happy in remind hon. Members that the great fishing festival of the year is held in my own constituency, at the height of the East Anglian herring season, when all the drifters are assembled, in all their might, in that wonderful old port of Great Yarmouth. That being so, what annoys us very often is that, after putting down a Question in this House, before we get an answer—whether we put it to the Minister of Agriculture, to the President of the Board of Trade, or even to the Home Secretary, who comes into it—there always has to be consultation with the Herring Board and the Secretary of State for Scotland, with messages passing between London and Edinburgh. As a result very often, in such a fluctuating industry, the answer comes long after the Question has ceased to be important.
Now that this Bill is giving the Herring Board additional powers, and now that the Board's activities are being expanded and we are spending more of the taxpayers' money on it—most of which obviously comes from this country—we in the English constituencies think it is about time we had more English representation on the Board. I have to go to Yarmouth every East Anglian herring season, and there is usually a rumpus of one kind or another. The Scottish fisher lassies come into the town; they grumble at what is in the shops; they say they have not enough money to buy what we have to sell, and so they go on strike.
Hon. Members will recollect that on one occasion, after the whole fleet came down the local Ministry of Food official made a mistake and the fisher lassies thought they were to get less rations. We then had to go running round to see if we could put that situation right. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) was with me in these negotiations, and he will correct me if I am wrong. With the herrings off the coast waiting to be caught in their millions, the whole fleet was held up in the port while negotiations went on between the strikers, the Ministry of Food and Members of Parliament. The negotiations were so protracted that the boats lay in port for about a week; in the meantime the herrings disappeared, and we had a bad season for some weeks after that. I do not say that happened because the Herring Board is run by Scotland; but I am saying that from my experience of disputes like that, and of these negotiations and minor difficulties—difficulties which do not get into the Press and do not cause strikes—it would lead to much smoother working, especially when the fleet is off the English coast, coming down from, say, Berwick to Great Yarmouth, if there were more opportunities to put the English point of view to the Board.
Some time ago there was great difficulty in the co-operation of the Herring Board representatives and the representatives of the Mediterranean exporters, who export mainly from Yarmouth—indeed, I believe only from Yarmouth. I will not go into the merits of the case: they were probably fifty-fifty. The Mediterranean exporters—who add to our exports to the Middle East, and so on, and perform a very useful function—came to the conclusion that they were being badly treated by the Herring Board. They started an agitation, which reached the town council. The town council took it up, and were prepared to form a subcommittee to try to negotiate with the Herring Board. The Herring Board said, "Very well, your sub-committee can come and see us at Edinburgh at half-past eleven on such and such a day." If hon. Members will think of a map and of the position of Yarmouth, they will appreciate our feelings, especially in view of the state of the railways in East Anglia. It is about a three-day journey to Edinburgh.

Mr. Boothby: Nonsense.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: It is a two-day journey, at any rate. It means that one must set off the night before and spend a whole day in the train, when a day's work is being done in Yarmouth, and, in addition, one's business the following day must suffer. Such action by the Herring Board means a wastage of several days during the course of a week. The town clerk, the deputy mayor, the mayor and an alderman were supposed to leave their business in Yarmouth and tackle the problem by making the long journey to Edinburgh. How much better if there had been a resident representative of the Herring Board in East Anglia or somewhere near; or if there had been a representative who could have been sent from London. Better still, the Edinburgh authorities could have said, "We will come to Yarmouth at once and get this settled."
The difficulties I have outlined have actually arisen. Our people are justified in claiming that there should be more English representation on the Herring Board and that improvements in methods of freezing, new factories and so forth should at least be considered for East Anglia to help that population of ours which relies so often on seasonal trade in the fishing industry. Year in and year out, there are always those months when some of our people are bound to be out of work. In order to get the proper balance at which we are aiming, it would be helpful if some of the activities of the Herring Board were placed in our care.
I will now leave this particular phase of international strife and go on to discuss the larger field. It seems to me that the most important point in the White Paper on the Agreement on Fishing (Cmd. 7387) is the announcement on the front page that
Consent to the adoption of this Report has not yet been obtained from the governments of Belgium, Denmark, Eire, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland.
I should say that means that, with the exception of every member of the Western Union, there could be agreement over fishing in the North Sea. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at present in Brussels. It would not be a bad idea, in this age of telegrams, if all of us who are interested in the fishing industry

sent him a telegram. The Western Union representatives in Brussels are talking about international and financial matters, and one of the most important aspects affecting our constituences is the fishing industry, which is held up—

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): They have all ratified.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I am very pleased to hear that. We can now leave off fishing, I hope, and the fish will get bigger.

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: Did I understand the Minister to say that the 1946 Convention was ratified?

Mr. T. Williams: When my hon. Friend quoted all the Western countries who were supposed to be co-operating as being those countries who had not ratified the Convention, I said that that was not the case as most of the Western countries had ratified it.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Now where are we?

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I hope that it is true and that we shall now get bigger fish from the North Sea and will not be sold those smaller things again at Yarmouth which the dealers were ashamed to sell to the hotels not many weeks ago.
The further question of research is linked up a great deal with fishing, and I mentioned it in the last Debate here on fishing some months ago. The cutting from one of our local papers which I have here tells of an expert of the Lowestoft fishing laboratories addressing one of our local scientific associations. He brought to the notice of his listeners the fact that we now have a new instrument which he calls the "echo sounder." Evidently it is something akin to radar in the air and it was discovered by accident that it would detect shoals of fish. As a result, experiments seem to have taken place off the Norwegian coast and a new way of making great catches of fish has been adopted. He said, for instance,
Using redundant British trawlers as parent ships"—
notice that, "redundant British trawlers"—
the Norwegians laid their 300 yard seine net 40 fathoms deep round the whole shoal by


means of two motor dories. When the net had been drawn tight around the fish the parent ship hoisted part of the net to the rail and hauled aboard the huge mass of fish, five crans at a time. Contrasting the speed and ease of this method with the laborious work of the English driftermen Dr. Hodgson mentioned that the Norwegians could easily haul a thousand crans a night, whereas last year's Prunier trophy winner took II hours' slogging to get 253 crans aboard.
If that is the opinion of an expert who saw it being done in Norway, and it is true, some of the money we are now sending over to the Herring Board under the Bill might well be spent in following up research of this kind. If fish can be caught at that rate, and if we can save the labour of our fishermen and get still bigger catches through using these foreign methods, we ought to push on with all our might, with financial backing and facilities from the Government. I hope that the Minister will tell us that such work is already under weigh and that the expert to whom I have referred is one of the people who are leading in this work of research.
What we are aiming at is stability in the industry. We want stability in catching the fish, so that we can get to the shoals straight away, so that we can work almost like a machine and can handle the whole process in a stable way. A number of speakers have mentioned the question of stability of marketing and keeping the fish, so that they can be got straight to the housewife—or to any process which is being used—in a proper manner. The process would begin if we knew where to go at once for the shoals, so that they did not elude the fishermen as they so often do at the height of the season. This stabilising process could, in fact, be carried on, and we would know where we were for the first time in the history of the industry.
I would like the Minister to tell us whether he has any indication that the catches we hope to bring ashore in the East Anglian fishing season later this year are already earmarked—as we hope they are—for the Control Commission, for instance. Last year, as a result of panic, a question had to be tabled in Parliament because the Control Commission had not signed its orders for the herrings we wanted to send to Germany. The fishermen and dealers wanted several months' notice but were not getting it. In

a panic an appeal was made to us and the document was got through. My information was that plans were made at this end and that a request was put to the Control Commission that the Germans should be given so many crans out of the season's catches. Apparently the application had to go, not only through the British Control Commission, but also through the hands of the Americans. The British representatives said, "Yes, this is a British industry and we want the herrings to come over to Germany to feed the German population." But the Americans said, "Ah, this is a very expensive form of diet. It is much cheaper to feed the Germans with bread, which we can get much cheaper." Therefore, they had nothing to do with the matter. The economic basis of an industry was more or less abolished by this stroke of an American Duro pen. It was only after agitation that we got this decision reconsidered and the American changed his mind. I wonder if that man is still doing the same thing this year, and is saying, "No; in any case, I can get herrings cheaper from Norway. Besides I can get more wheat this year from places like Argentine and the U.S.A. and, therefore, the Germans can do without herrings." Our people in the trade want to know the facts, so that they can make their preparations long before the season begins.
In conclusion I refer to the perennial question of nets. We say that over-fishing has been carried on during the last few years by nations on the other side of the North Sea—nations which have suffered from the evils of the occupation; nations which have lost a great part of their economic resources. We have all seen them building up their fishing gear in the last two and a half years. The Norwegians have made their research in a "redundant British trawler." We have had our own export drive, which has included nets and other fishing gear. These foreigners have used them and are now economic rivals to our own folk. Yet, our own folk have had the utmost difficulty in getting these nets ever since the war ended. I make a plea with the Minister to use his influence with the Board of Trade to try to swing round this matter of nets and to see that the first call on them this year is made on behalf of the fishermen of England and Scotland.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Duthie: I look upon this Bill as opportune and being in the main a good Measure. The inshore fishing industry is facing increasing difficulty. There are ominous signs of over-fishing in our Northern inshore fishing grounds. The lack of fish is something that transcends the seasonal falling off which we expect from time to time. The future of the herring industry is very uncertain and there has been a great deal of misgiving amongst herring fishermen. I am hopeful that the Bill will go a long way to dispelling disquiet and restoring confidence.
Regarding the inshore fishing industry and the very present problem of over-fishing, a great deal has been said about the size of mesh. I take the view—a view that emanates from experts in the North—that too much attention is paid to the mesh question and far too much is expected from it. The seine net, which is the method used in the North—and, indeed, used generally among inshore fishermen—is an instrument similar to the trawl. The net, as it is dragged along the sea bottom, picks up large and small fish alike; in addition it is inclined to disturb much of the food of the fish on the seabed. It is true that when a net is in the water fully extended the mesh which will probably be adopted as regulation will allow fish of small size to escape; it must be borne in mind, however, that when a net is in action there is considerable strain. The greater the strain owing to the presence of fish in the net, the more unlikely is the net to allow small fish to escape. To demonstrate my meaning, I have with me a piece of net. Here is what is termed the leader of a seine net. It is of a wider mesh than the "cod end" on the bag into which the fish are guided, but the mesh is very large and a reasonably-sized haddock could get through it. It will be noticed that once a strain is put on the net, it is almost as impervious as a piece of cloth or canvas.
Research will have to discover some type of material which will provide a mesh that keeps open under strain. Unless that is done, the slaughtering of small and immature fish will continue. I do not know how many Members have been in a seine net boat or trawler, but those who have will know that no matter how large the mesh, the strain on the gear is such that it imprisons a large number of

small fish. With the best will in the world on the part of the fishermen who want to return these small fish to the sea, the fish are either dead, or they are so far gone when thrown overboard they float on the surface to be snatched up by the ever-present seabirds. The result is that a large number of small fish are killed when every haul is taken up from the bottom of the sea. Research must be directed towards the interests and survival of the inshore fishing industry, by securing a type of mesh which will keep open under strain.
I am glad to note that steps are to he taken to license boats under this Bill. That can result in nothing but good, but what is to happen in regard to the control of the size of mesh? Our inshore fishermen often fish side by side with boats from Norway and Denmark. If our people are to be restricted in the size of mesh, there is to be no restrictions on the foreigners working by their side, they will be under a very severe handicap. It must be remembered that the catches of the foreigners will be landed in competition with those of our own people. I am extremely glad that further financial assistance is to be given for the provision of boats and gear. We must not forget that, with the depleted fish stocks in the sea, we are asking fishermen to invest their all in an industry which, without further generous guarantees, is precarious, to say the least.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the tremendous increase in costs in the fishing industry. The usual method of fishing in the inshore fishing industry is, as I have already stated, by means of the seine net, which is operated by a small diesel vessel somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 feet in length. A 60-foot diesel engine vessel of that size was ready for sea new at £1,600 in 1938. Today, the cost of a vessel similarly equipped is £9,000. In 1938, a new 85-foot steam drifter was worth about £4,000, but today it is worth eight times that figure, costing £30,000. Great assistance has been given to the industry by making redundant Admiralty vessels of the M.F.V. type available to fishermen.
I believe that the first of these vessels which were made available got into the right hands. I have personal experience of some of the first 75-foot vessels which


were made available. They were made available through the Scottish Office at a price of £5,000. The fishermen knew what the price of these vessels was, with the result that the best type of men applied and got them. The system has now been changed very much for the worse. They now go to those men who can offer the biggest price. A tender system is now in operation, and the highest bidder gets the vessel. In these circumstances, how can we be sure that the man who gets the boat is the man most deserving of it? I suggest that arrangements should be made with the Admiralty that, for any further vessels which become redundant, a price should be set on each, and people should be asked to apply for them. Then, after credentials have been vetted, the vessels can go to men of the enterprising type who most deserve a vessel.
It may be that the provisions of this Bill in regard to the inshore fishing industry will be inadequate. As the hon. and learned Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) has pointed out, the term "inshore" is a misnomer as far as these fishermen are concerned. These men go out in all weathers to any distance where there are fish, providing that it is within range of their vessel. It may be that the size of vessels for inshore fishing will have to be increased so that these men can go to the places where fish is obtainable.
I wish to give a few examples of the terrific increase in the cost of ancillary gear such as ropes and so on. Seine net boats have in regular use something like 16 coils of rope. Before the war, manila rope was obtainable at under £2 a coil. Today, manila is not obtainable, and it has to be substituted by sisal. Sisal rope costs £7 per coil, and, whereas manila would last three months, sisal lasts for only three weeks. A seine net cost £12 before the war, but its cost today is about £65. A herring net before the war cost about £2, and it now costs £12. To equip a herring drifter, it needs something like 350 nets for it to carry out its work from one year's end to the other. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to fix ceiling prices for fishing gear, but first of all to reduce prices, if that is at all possible. The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities

(Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) have made rather slighting remarks about our Scottish fishermen and their proneness to unreason and temper on occasion. Coming from among those fishermen, I deny both allegations.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Those remarks were not meant to be slighting; they were meant to be complimentary.

Mr. Duthie: I am very glad to hear that. There is one matter which I want to make clear, because I think that the House is owed an explanation, regarding the alleged behaviour of Scottish fishermen two years ago, when they threatened to strike, and when the then Minister of Food made a statement in the House that a pistol had been put to his head by the Scottish herring fishermen stating that they would tie up their boats rather than accept his prices. An hon. Member of this House had to go to Scotland to pour oil on troubled waters and to get the fishermen to renew conversations with the Minister of Food. In that he was successful. The true story was never told in this House. I think that I owe it to the Scottish fishermen to tell now exactly what happened.
They sent an ultimatum to the Minister of Food, stating that if he did not agree to an increase of prices, they would tie up their vessels. What led up to that was this: the Scottish Herring Producers Association, which is the Association representing the industry in Scotland, during the war years met the Minister of Food annually to discuss prices for the coming year. Early in 1946, a notice came from the Minister that prices would be discussed in Edinburgh some time in March. The delegated directors of the Scottish Herring Producers Association went to Edinburgh, after making considerable preparations. They went to the appointed meeting place and were there met by a subordinate officer of the Ministry of Food. Each member present was handed a typewritten slip, and when they asked for an explanation, they were told, "These are your prices for 1946, and there is no discussion." Consequently, they were somewhat incensed, and said, "Until the Minister sees fit to discuss prices with us, we shall tie up our vessels." That was the true picture.
Nevertheless, I am the first to admit that the Scottish Herring Producers Asso-


ciation has caused the Minister of Food some difficulty from time to time. I hope and believe that, the new powers implicit in the Bill to be vested in the Herring Board will tide us over such difficulties in the future. There has been, as I think the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) will agree, local committees within our Scottish Herring Producers Association who are apt to take the law into their own hands, and there are instances of the tail trying to wag the dog by some local committees presuming to give orders in particular ports.

Mr. Boothby: I do not entirely agree. When these committees were in operation, it was because there was no system of effective control of the industry. There were four different Departments competing, and not one with any coherent view as to what was happening. The fishermen, more or less, had to take the law into their own hands. Under this Bill, I hope that they will better themselves.

Mr. Duthie: I agree up to a point about their taking the law into their own hands, but without authority for so doing. I hope that under this Bill and the new era which it promises, we shall have all-out fishing, and I sincerely hope that we shall see introduced into the various herring ports schemes similar to that which has been so successful in Lerwick. It is difficult to get a fisherman to understand why he should get 35s. a cran for his shot when another man gets 7os. and another man 9os., all in the same day, for the same quality of fish—90s. for freshing, 70s. for curing, and 35s. for making into oil and fish meal. There is far too much disparity, and I trust that one of the first schemes which the Herring Board will bring into operation in all our fishing ports will be a scheme whereby they will purchase the entire catch at a flat rate, along the lines which are so successful in Shetland, and that the fishermen will receive whatever dividends are due to them on the eventual averaging-out sale of the fish.
The question of foreign landings has been touched upon. The importation of Norwegian herring gave cause for heart--burning among Scottish fishermen last Winter. In that regard, the Minister of Food was not to blame. He had the foresight to ensure that satisfactory quantities of fresh herring would be obtainable during the winter months. On top of

that, came unprecedented herring fishing in the Minch. I hope that the Herring Board, in its wisdom and foresight, will set about the provision of deep freezing plant at all suitable ports in the country, so that when there is a glut we shall be able to lay down in the freezing plants sufficient herring of prime quality to enable us to have herring on our tables throughout the winter. I sincerely trust, too, that the Herring Board will watch the interest of the fishermen, not forgetting the curers, the processors, the kipperers and those engaged in the red herring industry. [Laughter.] I am not referring to the type of red herring so common in this House. The kipperers, of whom there are several in all our small herring ports, are productive of a great deal of local labour. The jobs are there for people, and sometimes these small kipperers are apt to miss the mark with regard to prices. If the Minister of Food will not do it, I suggest that the Herring Board should consider some method whereby the kipperers are guaranteed against loss by their output being purchased outright.
I welcome the Bill very much. I believe that it is the precursor of what the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) chose to call the long-term policy for the industry. I think that the Bill is a move in the right direction, and it is greatly needed. With increasing costs and the falling off of white fish, young men are getting restive and inclined to leave the industry. I hope that this will be a fillip to help to keep them there. Anything that this House can do will never be too much for these splendid people—the very salt of God's earth—the fishing folk of our coasts.

7.19 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: I think this Bill is overdue. It is more than two years since the conference for the restriction of fishing in the North Sea was held. We have lost those two precious years, and over-fishing has been going on in the North Sea and great damage has been done. It is only today that this House is considering giving a Second Reading to a Bill to give effect to decisions taken at the conference. I regard the Government as blameworthy in losing these two precious years. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries who, I presume, will wind up the Debate,


and who I notice is not now on the Front Bench, will, I hope, make in precise terms any excuses he has to make for this two years' wastage. I hope he will tell us what steps the Government intend to take to make the convention operate. It was conceived and inspired by Britain, the meetings took place here and they were widely reported. There was an intense atmosphere for ten days, but since then nothing happened until this Pill erupted today, with a trifling Clause about mesh, which is of little value, and the licensing of boats, which will be of great value if other people carry it out. This is typical of the way in which this Government behave in so many respects. It is always a case of too little and too late.
The North Sea waters are the heritage of all the nations that fish in that sea. Those waters were there several thousand years before steam trawling began 60 years ago. During those 60 years much harm has been done, and it is the duty of all Governments to ratify and operate this convention in the interest of all countries, particularly those with fishing industries, which are certain to commit commercial suicide unless these grounds are protected. I note with regret that there is no permission to restrict over-fishing on the distant ground of Iceland, Bear Island and the White Sea, from whence come the great bulk of our catch of fish. This is predominantly a British enterprise. British trawlers from the Humber and other ports operate on those distant grounds, and it is not outwith the control of the Government to put their own house in order so far as these grounds are concerned and possibly bring the Icelandic Government, whose trawlers are a bad second in operating on these grounds, into line. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who is not on the Front Bench—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): That is the second time the hon. Member has made that remark about my right hon. Friend. I would like to make it clear that he has been here for most of this Debate, and that he will be away for only a short time.

Commander Pursey: Will the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) give us any evidence of over-

fishing in distant grounds, because what he has said is contrary to what was said earlier from his own side of the House, that there was no over-fishing in distant grounds? The hon. Member is largely tilting at windmills.

Sir D. Robertson: I will deal with these interruptions one at a time. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot tell me anything about who has been here and who has not, because I have been here since Question time. I have said before, and I repeat it, that if in the Lobby I hailed the Minister of Agriculture as the Minister of Fisheries, he would not know who I was referring to; the fishery industry in this country gets a very raw deal from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I think he should be present during the whole of this Debate.

Mr. G. Brown: My right hon. Friend must eat.

Sir D. Robertson: The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) wanted to know whether I have any evidence of over-fishing in distant grounds. The best advice I can give him is to go back to Hull and read the records, which will show that at Bear Island, in 1927, the average weight of the cod catch was 10 lb. each. Within a year or two it had been reduced to 7 lb. each, and just before the war it was down to 4 lb. each. There could be no clearer evidence than that of over-fishing. If the hon. and gallant Member will go on to the pontoon at Hull, or across the Humber to Grimsby, and look at the catches as they come in, he will find many soft and immature fish among them which should have been left behind. If the Bill is right in attempting to protect the North Sea, surely it is equally right to protect the grounds a little further North. Is over-fishing a parochial matter? Does it finish at the Faroes? No. I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member should have made such an interruption.
I would like to say a word about herring, as the Secretary of State for Scotland said, I believe, that there was an abundance of herring in the sea and that there was no fear of herring being fished out. That is completely wrong. I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to take the advice of competent advisers—he will find them in the industry at our principal ports—on this matter. If he does he will find that great harm has


been done to herring spawn and the species by trawling for herring from the Humber, Aberdeen and Fleetwood. Herrings heavy with young go to the bottom of the sea and spawn there. Ordinarily, herring are caught by drifters when the fish are close to the surface and in good condition. They should be left alone to perform Nature's function of reproduction. It is only then that the trawlers come out for them, because it is only then that they can get them, as they operate their trawls at the bottom of the sea.
Figures were quoted today by the Secretary of State, or perhaps it was my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), about the total quantity of herrings taken by the Germans before the war. All these were trawled herring. We have no need to stand any humbug from Germany about signing and ratifying the convention; we are in a position to say what she should do, and I hope the Minister will consult the Foreign Secretary to see that that is done. I hope Britain will set an example herself. The herring ought to be left to the impoverished herring fishermen who have had such a bad time since Russia went out of the market.
I also note with regret that the Bill takes no notice at all of the deplorable quality of fish which is now being landed from distant grounds. I spoke at some length on this subject in the recent Economic Debate, and I will not repeat what I then said tonight, beyond emphasising that this wastage of valuable food is going on with reckless abandon. Ice is useless as a preservative for fish for more than seven days. Every day catches are being landed from vessels which have been to sea from 25 to 30 days, so that the fish is probably anything up to two or three weeks old. It is being condemned in large quantities. The trade has been holding a conference this week, of which "The Times," on Tuesday, said this:
Mr. W. Rickards, speaking at the conference of the National Federation of Fishmongers, at Liverpool, yesterday, said that conscientious retailers were blushing with shame daily at the quality of the fish they were selling.
That is an observation made by the chairman of the National Federation of Fishmongers, representing many fishmongers in Great Britain—

Mr. Boothby: It is true.

Sir D. Robertson: I know it is true, because I have spent many years in the industry. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which is maintained by the British taxpayer, has reported time and again that what should be done in the case of vessels operating in distant grounds is that fish should be frozen within an hour or two of capture. If that is done, people will get fish of a superlative quality and not the dreadful things which the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant) addressed when they were electioneering in Aberdeen.
I am glad that the Bill gives more assistance to the herring industry, because it needs all the help it can get, but I am completely dismayed at this herring oil project with which the Bill so largely deals. The total catch of herrings before the war by all nations fishing in the North Sea, as was mentioned by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities, was roughly 1,000,000 tons. Our share was about a quarter of that—250,000 tons of lovely fresh herrings landed in this small island of ours; and here we have a Bill today, at a time when our people are almost hungry, suggesting that some of this lovely food should be converted into oil for margarine. It is a shameful suggestion, and one that fishermen resent. They catch this good food which the Almighty produces, and they land it in good condition.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) said a moment ago, some of it makes 80s., some 70s. and some 34s. The Secretary of State for Scotland said earlier that the actual price paid by the refiner to the herring industry was 8s. 6d. a cran, and the taxpayer has to subsidise it to bring it up to 31s. When that is done it is still 53s. under the maximum price which the fisherman is entitled to get for his herring. It is an intolerable situation. It is wrong from the national point of view to take this fine food and crush it into oil. That is all right in Alaska, in Newfoundland and in Labrador because there are no populations there to consume the fish, but this is a densely-populated island with 47 million people, and to talk of turning herring into oil is completely wrong. If I were not in this House I might be tempted to say some-


thing stronger, but I hope that my remarks will be conveyed to the Minister of Agriculture and also that the fishermen will hear them.

Mr. McKinlay: Come outside, and you and I will have a heart-to-heart talk.

Sir D. Robertson: I think the hon. Member shares my own views on these matters. I have a great regard for the Herring Board. It is doing a first-class job, and as a Scotsman who has now moved South I would be glad indeed to support the idea of representation by some Englishmen on the Board.

Mr. Edward Evans: Regarding the hon. Member's statement about crushing herring into oil, how does he reconcile that with the statement of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who pleaded very strongly, as I understood it, for an intensification of the development of that end of the industry? He went so far as to compare it with the millions of money which is being spent in securing oil from East Africa.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may say so in passing, I remarked that until every herring that could be used for eating had been used, we should not go on with the scheme of crushing them for oil.

Mr. Evans: That is what we call dealing with the surplus. If there is no market for them that is what we can do with them. That has been the problem which has faced the industry in the past, but what I want to ask the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) is how does he reconcile his statement with that of his right hon. and gallant Friend?

Sir D. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman will have patience, I will tell him in a moment or two what to do with the herring.

Commander Pursey: The answer is to eat them.

Sir D. Robertson: I will have something to say about that. It is good for Scotsmen to accept the suggestion of the Sassenachs that they should have representation on the Board. That would be excellent, because some of my fellow countrymen in the industry are apt to be somewhat thrawn.
The Herring Board, which has done so many good things and deserves the praise and support of the Government and of all of us in all parties, carried out an interesting experiment in Lerwick and elsewhere in regard to the freezing of herring. Last year they froze altogether 528 tons, of which about 375 tons were frozen as herring and the remaining 150 tons dealt with as frozen kippers. These were sold to my old firm who instantly re-sold them, while their customers were clamouring for more. Five-hundred odd tons is a pitifully small amount and could not possibly pay. It must have cost the State a good deal of money, because it was far too small ever to pay, but it proved to those who still want proof that these herring are eagerly wanted either in their natural form or as kippers. The solution to this herring problem is to commence large-scale freezing and cold storage operations at the six principal herring fishing ports, Lerwick, Stornoway, Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Yarmouth and Lowestoft. The plants should be large-scale ones, capable of dealing with 10,000 tons and with a capacity for freezing anything from 1,000 to 2,000 tons per week.

Mr. Boothby: Does my hon. Friend think that he could sell these herrings at a profit? I am not saying he could not, but I should like his opinion on the matter.

Sir D. Robertson: I should like the job. I talked about this to my old firm a few days ago. They were deploring that the whole output from Lerwick was only 500 tons. They wished it had been many times more. If these plants are built and quick-freezing facilities provided, it would greatly help the industry. The House might be interested to know that a company of which I am managing director has created a modern freezing plant. It is in a tunnel, with a moving conveyor and with a temperature of minus 40 degree Fahrenheit, which is 70 degrees of frost; and cold-driven air passes over the fish at over 1,100 feet a minute. That is being used greatly in Grimsby, and similar plants can be erected elsewhere, with stream-lined mechanisation.
We are living in a mechanised age. It does not call for a big staff. Those magnificent herring women, to whom the East Anglian people


owe so much for gutting and salting the herrings in the open air in the cold and frost, all for very low wages for a long time, would find more congenial employment in these plants. Stocks could be kept continually moving to the Clyde, the Thames, the Forth, the Bristol Channel, Humber, Mersey and the Tyne, bringing stocks of fine fresh herring to the consuming centres. We would not have to spend our precious foreign currency on poor quality Norwegian herring which is good enough to eat in Bergen, Oslo, or Copenhagen, but is not good enough to eat at Waterloo station. Much of it is only fit for manure.
That is the solution for this problem, and if the Minister or any other associate or the Herring Board care to go to Grimsby, we will give them a demonstration of this quick-freezing plant. In that connection, may I say that 25 years ago in Norway I saw the Norwegians doing this. The drifters came alongside the quays and discharged their catches into the brine freezing tanks. It was a mechanical operation, and no handling was necessary. They were doing it for bait for their white fishing industry. My company used to buy them for the vessels which we sent to Baffin Island, to be used for bait, but the frozen herrings from Norway were so good that we sold those unused for bait for human food when we brought the ships back nine months later. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Colman) expressed doubts about frozen fish, but I would easily convince her if she came to see the plant working. She would agree with me that the people of Britain would want them. We could sell them in America. The great mid-West markets would rather have a good quality frozen Scottish or English herring than the canned herrings an hon. Member referred to earlier in this Debate.
That trade is waiting to be picked up. There is no mystery about freezing. New Zealand did it nearly 65 years ago and has been doing it ever since with her mutton and lamb. Argentina is doing it, and the United States has been doing it for very much longer that anybody. It is a better scheme than spending £25 million on groundnuts in Tanganyika. Even the hon. Member for East Aberdeen joined in the doubts which have been expressed when he asked me whether I would sell the frozen herrings. I cer-

tainly would sell herrings frozen at a low temperature every night just as they came out of the vessel, which means 72 degrees of frost, almost instantaneously. They are kept at a low temperature and are marketed like that. They are welcomed in this country, where we have to eat Bear Island cod and other fish which has been dead for three weeks before it is consumed.

Mr. Boothby: The reason I asked the hon. Member the question was only that I saw a representative of the Herring Board under the Gallery and I wanted to pin him down.

Sir D. Robertson: I value the interruption in that case. I hope that the Herring Board representative will permit me to take him to Grimsby and show him the works. What are we waiting for? Here is an all-British industry. Are the Front Government Bench too timid to build these plants and to go to the Treasury and make them fork out the money? We were able to build 50 huge cold storage plants to safeguard our food during the war. Is it not possible now, when our food is still in jeopardy, for us to build six plants for the herring industry?

7.44 p.m.

Commander Pursey: The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) is the only one who has introduced a really controversial note into the Debate. First of all, he attacked the Minister who has been here practically the whole time. When I interrupted to ask a question the hon. Member made an attack upon me. I can take that in my stride. I did not interrupt him back because I knew that sooner or later I would follow him. I would like to take him up on the last point he has been talking on. He was asking that we should build six plants for freezing herrings. I would ask him why he and his fish industry did not do that job in the 20 years between the two wars?

Sir D. Robertson: I humbly apologise to the hon. Member if he thought that I made an attack upon him. I start off with a big advantage in a matter of this kind because I was happily employed in this industry for more than 20 years. I do not patronise hon. Members on that account and the last thing I would do would be to attack anybody except a


Minister. That is a thing which I enjoy doing on a point like this. The hon. Member has asked me why I did not do this job between the wars. The answer is that I joined a little fish firm in Billingsgate about 30 years ago. When I left it to come into this place in 1939, the capital was something like £3 million. We raised the firm from a little enterprise worth about £4,000 to that figure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did not the hon. Member stop there?"] I was very fully employed there working for long hours. I need not apologise to anybody on account of slacking because I did a pretty fair job of work. An hon. Member has just asked me why I left it. I exuded public spirit, which I am sure he himself exudes. Otherwise I should still be fishing.

Commander Pursey: I do not complain about what the hon. Member said about myself. I only wanted to take him up on his own ground. The time to force the argument which he employed was in those 20 years between the wars, when there was unemployment, capital and material were available and there was every opportunity to develop such a scheme. This is not the time to attack the Government for not doing such things. In point of fact, in the three years in which they have been in office the Government have done more for the fishing industry than any Government who preceded them.

Sir D. Robertson: The hon. Member is wrong again. I am not attacking the Government for not freezing, but am simply telling them to do it instead of going on refining oil. I attacked the Government for the two years that the locusts have eaten from the time when they reached the agreement till the bringing in of the Bill.

Commander Pursey: I think we may leave the matter there. I want to take up the point he made about over-fishing in the distant seas. I have been here nearly all the afternoon, but I am not quite certain which hon. Member made the observation. I think it was the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) who said there was no over-fishing in the distant seas.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Lieut.-Colonel Elliot indicated dissent.

Commander Pursey: If he did not say it, I must have made a mistake. The hon. Member got back on me and tried to tell me that I ought to know more about the subject. Not only do I come from a fishing family and not only have I spent 30 years at sea, but I have also been in Norway and the Scandinavian countries. Without patting myself on the back I reckon I know a little bit about the matter, if not to the same extent as the hon. Member. The hon. Member quoted 1927, but we are not dealing with that year today. This is 20 years onwards and the position in the distant seas, as in the North Sea, is that there have been six years with no fishing. Today, there are also reduced British and Icelandic trawler fleets. Consequently, I honestly say that over-fishing in the distant seas is not now a problem. I repeat what I said when I interrupted the hon. Member that he was simply tilting at windmills. I will now pass on to my own speech.
I have listened with considerable interest to this important Debate about a very important industry. I was prepared to allow my hon. Friend on this side of the House from inshore fishing areas to get in with their first innings. The hon. Members for Banff (Mr. Duthie) and St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) made reference to inshore fishing and complained of that term. There is nothing in it today. About 40 years ago, in my youth, there was real inshore fishing. We had no auxiliary engines in boats and only worked with sails. Boats went as far as the sails would take them and in places like the Devon and Cornish coast they had to haul their craft up on the beach. Today with auxiliary motors boats can go considerable distances, compared with the days of sail and everyone appreciates that. Therefore that was rather a wasted point.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) and others have referred to the lack of harbour facilities, jetties which require repairing and so on, but they do not realise how well off they are, compared with the fishermen on the open beaches around our coasts. I make a special plea to the Minister that if any consideration is to be given, the first consideration should be given to the open coast fishermen who are limited as to the size of their craft and consequently the distance they can go to sea, and suffer


the handicap of having to haul their craft up on the seashore.
It is not only from the inshore point of view that I want to make a contribution to this Debate and to welcome the Bill, but also from the point of view of the larger craft. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) is now a junior Minister and so we have not had the advantage of his wisdom and knowledge. Also, the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. S. Smith) is on the sick list and, as he represents the fishing industry area in Hull, he would have made a contribution. I shall therefore speak on behalf of Hull, the largest fishing port with the largest fishing fleet in the world, and of the craft which make the long voyages to the distant fishing grounds and bring back the greatest landings. In Hull we also have a cod liver oil factory and fish meal factories which are part of the important adjuncts of this industry. As to the larger issues, if an hon. Member had wished to raise a controversial point I would have thought it would have been about coal, but I just mention that word and leave it there.
I support the demand for an increased and quicker supply of nets; if fishing vessels cannot get their nets, they are not much good as fishing vessels—and other equipment. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) discussed the question of prices and said that prices ought to come down, controls ought to be put on and ceilings ought to be established, and yet, generally speaking, the Opposition are arguing for the removal of all controls and the establishment of a "free for all." In other words, the Opposition are out to keep controls when it suits them and to remove them when it does not. Therefore there is no consistency in their arguments about controls.
A problem which frequently crops up, perhaps not to a large extent, is that of trawlermen's long thigh boots, and I would like the Minister to make a note of that so that an adequate supply can be provided. A more important matter from the point of view of the larger vessels is the supply of materials and their refits, so that they are not detained unduly long in port for refitting when they ought to be at sea. I welcome the new measures for the larger mesh and the restriction on the tonnage of vessels. When the hon. and learned Member for

St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) advocated that licences should be limited to vessels of over 70 feet, it seemed that he would rule out most of the inshore vessels. Another important point which has only been mentioned once, and that from this side of the House, is the question of improvements for the crew. The living and sleeping accommodation and washing and other facilities in the later vessels are being improved, but a great deal can be done in the older types of vessels to make life more tolerable, particularly on the longer voyages.
No doubt the most important subject affecting the industry is that of over-fishing. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to that but, as far as I know, no one has attempted to develop the point and to suggest any means whereby over-fishing may be checked. There might be prohibited areas. By international agreement there could be prohibited areas which might be varied from time to time. Then comes the difficulty, which has always existed, particularly in dealing with foreign craft, of the control of fishing craft at sea especially in bad weather and low visibility. It would require quite an armada of small vessels adequately to patrol the fishing grounds of the North Sea. I have had some experience of fishery protection, and I know what the game is.
I am glad to welcome the transfer of the headquarters of the Fishery Protection Service from Lowestoft to my constituency. Today fishery protection has certain advantages. There are the improved high speed naval craft which are an advantage in chasing foreign vessels. There is also the possibility of the use from time to time of aircraft, even though they are rather on the expensive side. A combination of naval flying with fishery protection might be employed or consideration might be given to the use of a smaller and therefore less expensive type of aircraft, which would be a means of providing flying training for the Fleet Air Arm, which now comprises roughly one-third of the Royal Navy. That would be of particular value to hon. Members on the Devon and Cornwall coast for chasing the Spaniards.
There is also radar. Radar would be of value in finding fishing craft, and if


the Government were able to get international agreement about prohibited areas, the Admiralty would be in a far better position today to control them than it would have been before the war. Reference has been made to the use of radar in finding shoals of fish and to echo-sounding. Echo-sounding was the grandfather of radar. First there was echo-sounding, then Asdics and then radar. I am an Asdic expert. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) made a suggestion about research. I am all for research in every direction, but little or no research is required into echo-sounding. Echo-sounding was on the market for merchant ships 30 years ago. The Asdic was mentioned in the address by Dr. Hodson, of the Lowestoft Fisheries Laboratory, but Asdics are too expensive and too technical to be used simply for fishing crafts.
Therefore, use should be made by fishing craft, particularly the larger ones, of echo sounding for the purpose of finding fishing shoals. But I believe that in the address that was given the reference to fishing in Norway was a reference to the seine net fishing in the fjords in flat calm and fine weather. Seine fishing is one thing, drift net fishing and trawling fishing, as everyone knows, is a totally different proposition. Therefore, it does not follow that because the Norwegians have been particularly successful with echo sounding as regards seine fishing it would be so successful at sea. But echo sounding can find fishing shoals, and I suggest that it should be developed.
The question of foreign landings has been raised. I do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of that except to say that at the present moment when we can take all the fish we can get foreign landings are an advantage. The only problem is to see that there is a fair deal as between our own fishing vessels and the foreigners. Reciprocal agreements are often tied up with the question of foreign landings. I understand that one reason why Norway was allowed in pre-war days to land fish in this country was because there was a reciprocal coal agreement with Norway, and therefore it was part of a bargain. Norway may have said, I do not know whether this was the case, "We will not take your coal unless you take our fish." So it is not entirely a one-sided arrange-

ment which favours the foreigners to accept these foreign landings today.
The other side to this question of imports from foreign countries is the fact of exports to other foreign countries, to which reference has been made. When fish, and particularly herring—and the hon. Member for Streatham referred to the export of herring—are sent over a long distance it must be done with a certain amount of sense. For instance, we cannot export herring and keep the trade if we do what happened to a cargo or part of a cargo of herring which I know was sent to Athens some years ago. When I was in Athens I found that someone had flown out from Hull because a cargo of herring had gone bad. When he inquired into the position he found that they had been packed with cheese. Herring, particularly red herring, are good travellers with certain things, but herring do not travel well with cheese, and whether it was the cheese that had put the herring off or the herring which had put the cheese off first I will net argue. Much the same thing happened to a cargo of herring for Egypt. Therefore, if we want to get and retain export markets for herring they must be sent with some certainty of arriving at their destination fit for human consumption.
The ultimate object of the fishing industry is to provide fresh and cheap fish for the consumer. This is a problem yet to be tackled. The reference of the hon. Member for Streatham to fish being kept aboard ship for 25 days, when it should not have been kept there longer than seven days, and other things which are happening, together with the price structure of the industry, are in the present situation factors to support a demand for a Government inquiry into the fishing industry and the distribution of fish in this country, with the object of getting a better standard of fish at a cheap price all over the country, including the country districts. I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly as an advantage to the industry and as an advantage to the community. Like other hon. Members I hope that it is the first of several other Bills which will follow dealing not only with the sea side of the industry but also the shore side, so that there will be no question that as time goes on we shall get a better supply of fish at a cheaper price.

8.5 p.m.

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) in welcoming this Bill, which has very good features. I do not agree with everything the hon. and gallant Member said. I thought he made a dangerous remark about over-fishing in distant waters. It may be that there is no over-fishing in those waters at the moment, but nothing is more certain than that if the exploitation of those waters expands at the rate at which it was expanding before the war, the danger of over-fishing will undoubtedly become apparent.

Commander Pursey: As the hon. and gallant Member has taken up that point, and as I debated it with another hon. Member, I would like to make it clear that I am not saying that there is no prospect of over-fishing in the distant seas. What I am saying is that because of no fishing for six years, and the present reduced British and Atlantic trawler fleet, there is no over-fishing in the distant seas, or any immediate likelihood of it. Obviously, when the Government are considering, with other foreign Governments, restrictions as regards over-fishing in the North Sea, they should not overlook the distant waters. But there is no over-fishing in those waters today, nor is there likely to be in the immediate future.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: I do not disagree with that. There is no over-fishing there at the present time, but it is one of the things upon which we have to keep a very sharp eye in case we get over-fishing there.
By far the most important topic which has been raised in this Debate is the question of over-fishing, which is, of course, far worse in near waters than anywhere else, although it is now appearing again in the middle waters. The North Sea fisheries underwent a great recovery after the 1914–18 war, and much the same thing happened after the last war. About four years after the end of the First World War, over-fishing became rampant. The same thing is now happening again in the North Sea. I welcome what there is in this Bill which will do anything to put a stop to that over-fishing.
One of the classic examples of over-fishing was that of the halibut industry in the North Pacific. It is interesting to note how that was dealt with. In that case the fleet was already too big and there was no question of restricting the size of the fishing fleet. The only thing that could be done was to restrict the amount of time spent on fishing. That had a most remarkable result, because in 10 years the yield from that fishery had very nearly doubled. That is what happens when over-fishing is dealt with. If production is limited a far bigger yield is eventually obtained. The ideal is to ascertain what is the optimum production for any given fishery and then to restrict the fishing effort to that figure. The method applied in the case of the North Pacific halibut industry was an uneconomic one. It meant that the men were lying ashore, the boats were idle and the overheads were great.
By far the most effective way in which this problem can be dealt with is by limiting the total catching power. I am now speaking about the North Sea. We are all left in considerable doubt as to what is the present position regarding the International Convention. I hope the Minister will clear up this point when he replies. As far as I know, agreement was reached, at the 1946 Convention, on the size of mesh of nets and on the size of fish, both important points but really minor ones, and in fact no agreement was reached at that Convention on the subject of the size of fishing fleets. I think that is the position. The problem of over-fishing continued to be examined by the standing advisory committee of the International Over-fishing Conference, and their report, which I am now discussing, was published only a couple of days ago.
It appears from that document that the British proposal was to limit the catching power of our fleet in the North Sea to 75 per cent. of its pre-war size. Belgium put forward a different proposal, that we should ascertain the amount of fish that could be taken without interfering with the stocks; but I cannot see what that was going to achieve. In point of fact, I think there is already available quite enough statistical and scientific information to say what is the approximate catch that should be taken out of the North Sea without endangering the actual stock. France wanted to regulate the


catch of each country in accordance with its consumption needs. There again, I cannot see what is the value of that suggestion. We may be able to ascertain the countries' needs, but what really matters is what fish is available. The British proposal is the only one which seems to get down to brass tacks, and it is very much to be regretted that Norway, Denmark and Sweden are all opposed to reduction in the size of the fleets or in the limitation of the catch, although they agree about the mesh proposals, and, in fact, put forward proposals for a larger mesh.
The British proposals were supported by several countries, Eire, Iceland, Poland and Portugal, none of which has a very great interest in fishing in the North Sea. I like to think that they approached this in an objective way, without any bias or axe to grind, and found that the British proposals were good commonsense proposals for dealing with the problem. Failing to get any agreement, I understand that another British proposal was put forward to limit the catch for 1948–49 to 85 per cent. of the 1936 to 1938 figure and also that an international commission should be set up to examine the fisheries and to report on conservation measures. The Netherlands put up some counterproposals.
I am not condemning the Government in any way. I think they have tried to do their best in difficult circumstances, and a study of this document shows how extremely difficult it is to get any agreement on an international scale. The Netherlands wanted to fix the optimum catch by agreement with a special quota for each country. That seemed to be impracticable. It would be of no use to fix the catch unless the share is fixed. Sweden, Denmark and Norway were against the proposal. The only encouraging fact is that Denmark, Sweden, France and Belgium do not expect to increase the size of their fleet beyond the 1938 figure, at any rate for the next few years. I think that there is a grain of comfort to be gained from that. We are not to be faced with the immediate prospect of the building up of very big fleets which would reduce the condition of the North Sea Fisheries to a deplorable state.
It seems that each country agreed to recommend their own proposals to their respective Governments and the whole

thing seems to be entirely chaotic. I wish to know what is actually happening in this Bill. We appear to be putting forward our own proposals, and I shall be alarmed if we put these into practice without getting a very sure undertaking from the other nations that they are going to put their proposals into practice. Perhaps the Minister would spend a little time on that point. What alarms me very much indeed is that Spain was not a party to this conference. I think the reason for that is that our Government have a dislike of the politics of the present Government of Spain. I think that is just too silly for words, and that some effort should be made to confer with Spain. She has already built a fleet bigger than in 1938, which is going to be a real menace to our fishing industry.
The other great danger that I see is that although there is in this report a reference to Germany, apparently no steps are being taken to control her fishing effort. Germany may, on her own initiative, build up a great fleet which would ruin the North Sea in less than no time. If she cannot build up such a fleet from her own resources, she may be helped to do so by some other country. I think that is a point which must be dealt with.
A number of references have been made to the herring industry. There is scope for development in that industry. We are far behind the state of development which the industry had reached in the years before the 1914–18 war. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) quoted the figure of 250,000 tons of herring landed in this country immediately before the war. If we go back to the years before 1914, it was quite common to have an annual catch of three million crans of herring. That, translated into weight, is 525,000 tons of herring, and that was a common pre-war average. We were recently given the catch for 1947, which was rather over one million cranless than 200,000 tons of herring. That means that on the basis of the average annual landing, pre-1914, there are, every year, something like 330,000 of herring swimming in the North Sea unharvested. The sooner we make a bid to harvest this fish the better.
I join issue with the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) who talked


with great knowledge and experience of the fishing industry. I think he is wrong to condemn the catching of herring for the purpose of extracting oil and other things from them. We really cannot afford to neglect any source either of proteins Dr oil at the present time. I would certainly say, let us catch all the herring that we can and market all we can as herring. But we can get a vastly greater quantity than we can dispose of at the moment, as herring, and the proper thing to do seems to me to be to catch all the herring we can for conversion into meal and oil.

Mr. Edward Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman take up the point about the over-fishing of the herring? He is a great authority on the herring.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: With one exception, there is no evidence of any over-fishing in the herring industry. It is hardly likely on the figures that I have given, when year after year before 1914 we used to catch over 500,000 tons of herhing, that our present catch of 200,000 tons is likely to produce over-fishing. I admit that, in one particular part, with which the hon. Member is no doubt familiar, there is a suspicion that the trawling of herrings has produced over-fishing in that area, and it is certainly a point that should be watched very carefully.

Mr. Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very regrettable that his hon. Friend is not present to hear that statement, in view of his remarks about my right hon. Friend the Minister?

Sir B. Neven-Spence: My hon. Friend will doubtless read what I have said. The Herring Industry Board is often blamed for not having done things, but it is only right to say that it has up to now been very restricted in its activities by the statutory limitations imposed upon it. That is one of the reasons I welcome this Bill, as it will enable the Board to do a number of things which ought to be done and which I hope will be done very soon. Several references have been made in this Debate to my own constituency, and I myself have watched the activities of the Herring Industry Board there with very great interest from the start. It is a pity to suggest that the efforts which they have made there are very puny.
The hon. Member for Streatham was not very impressed with the 528 tons of herrings which were quick-frozen in 1947 but it must be remembered that this scheme started only in 1946 and that the Board began under the most extraordinary difficulties. They could not get half the machinery they wanted, they had difficulty in getting it transported, and they could not get all the building materials or labour they needed; nevertheless, by almost superhuman efforts, they did get into action in 1946 and did process some 200 tons of herrings. Naturally, 1947 was a better year and 528 tons were processed. I understand that the figure for this year will be something like 2,000 tons. That is a much more impressive figure, and I am quite certain that the experiment being carried out there holds out very great hope for the future of the industry.
Markets are a very difficult question. Fishing people are still hankering after the days when herrings, hard cured and packed in barrels with salt, were disposed of to various countries of Europe, some of which have now disappeared behind the "Iron Curtain," and the inhabitants of which, even if they would like the herrings, are not allowed to have them. I should hesitate to suggest that there is any great prospect of a return of this trade in the immediate future, if at all. What we have to do is to exploit our own home markets to the maximum possible extent. There are densely-populated areas in this country where the people have never had a decent herring, and I think that one of the jobs which the Board will have to do is to send herrings into these areas in the best possible condition.
I had the great misfortune a few days ago to have to eat what would be called a "British Transport herring," in one of their hotels. It was an incredible production, like a piece of old boot leather, under-smoked, over-dyed and completely tasteless. That sort of thing is a very bad advertisement for the herring, and I shall not be eager to have another for some weeks. It came from Norway, and I think it is a great pity that we have to take herrings of that type, because they are very damaging indeed to the reputation of the herring. I know that we have to take them when herrings are not actually being caught by this country, but I think the answer to that is to be


found in the activities of the Herring Industry Board. It has been proved now that herrings, at the end of some months in cold storage, come out like perfectly fresh herrings just caught, and that they can also be turned into absolutely first-class kippers. I hope the day will come when, if one orders a kipper in this country, it will be a British herring and not one of these citied imported ones.
One hon. Member has referred to the necessity of other plants such as that which has been established at Lerwick, and I quite agree. I have heard it suggested that the places where this type of plant should be installed are Fraserburgh and Lowestoft. I think that is a great mistake because I think there are certain centres where herring fishing has been prosecuted in the past on a very big scale and where it undoubtedly can be prosecuted again on a very big scale, and one of these places happens to be my own constituency and native county—Shetland.
It is not generally realised that a tremendous herring fishery has centred in these islands throughout history, and we need only go back to the days before the 1914–18 war to find that one-third of all the herrings landed on the East Coast of Scotland were landed on these islands, and one-quarter of the entire Scottish catch, which is equivalent to about one-eighth of the entire British catch, came out of those waters. The men there are under the difficulty that they cannot get top prices for their herrings, such as are obtained in the East Coast ports, because of the long distances which they have to be transported. There is no doubt that the quick-freezing plants will be one of the best ways of solving this problem.
The scheme which is operated in Lerwick has been referred to. That was entered into entirely voluntarily by the fishermen there with the Herring Fishery Board. The arrangement was that the Board undertook to buy their entire catch and dispose of it whatever way they could. They paid the men a basic sum for the herrings and agreed to divide the "kitty," or whatever profit they made, at the end. It took a great deal to persuade the fishermen to come into that scheme, as they are rather individualistic in their views about how to catch and

market herrings, but they did come in, and this is a lesson that needs to be learned by herring fishermen in other areas. The point is that it was stressed to them that it might pay them a great deal better to fish throughout the season for a smaller average price than to be constantly tying up their boats, fishing spasmodically and taking the top price which was available to them. The result was that in 1946 and 1947 the men there had a better return than herring fishermen in any other parts of the country, and their experience ought to encourage fishermen in other parts to collaborate with the Board in the type of scheme which they have been trying to develop.
In regard to the use of herrings for the production of oil, some of the East Coast fishermen went over to Norway and were impressed by what they saw there. One plant, the largest in the world, was producing 180 tons of meal and 90 tons of oil per day. These men sampled a quite delicious cream which was spread on buns and pastries and which was made out of herring oil. There are other very important possibilities in connection with the proteins derived from herrings. Experiments are going on now which aim at making the best possible use of everything which can be extracted from the herring. Experiments are not yet complete, but it is very encouraging to know that investigations and research of that kind are going on at the present time, and I cannot help feeling that the Board are working on the right lines in their research.
The herring fishing industry can look forward to a very much more stable and prosperous future than it has been able to for a number of the years in the past, when it had a very bad time indeed, with very poor returns and great destitution, with a great many men being actually driven out of the industry altogether. I think the future for these men is full of hope, and I welcome everything in this Bill which will strengthen the hands of the Board. Much as I dislike controls, I am perfectly willing to admit that in the circumstances a case has been made out, in the interests not only of the fishermen but of the people of the country.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I do not propose, if I can help it, to detain the House for any


great length of time and I shall certainly confine myself to the subject of the herring fishing industry, which is not unfamiliar to me, for I have been talking about it on and off in this House for the last quarter of a century. I find myself in complete agreement with what was said by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and indeed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, with regard to the over-fishing of the North Sea. I agree with one hon. Member who said it was a great danger facing this country today. It is absolutely imperative that we should get international agreement on this matter; and those who advocate, as I do, a union of Western Europe, are entitled to say, I think, that if we cannot get some sort of united action on this particular business, the outlook for our larger schemes is black indeed. I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) said about Spain. Franco may be a very bad chap, but when it comes to fish that is really very much more important; and I think the right hon. Gentleman must waive his political objections to the regime, if necessary, in order to get an agreement. I do not know whether that is holding things up, but we do want to get an agreement. I believe they are anxious to co-operate; and they can muck up any international agreement, if they are disposed to do so, and are left out of any arrangements which may be made.
Before I pass to the subject of herrings, I would like to say a word about the landing of immature fish in this country. I agree with what hon. Members have said. Here, surely, is something on which we can take immediate action. Far too much of this is going on; and I beg the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to realise that. There is far too much landing of immature fish in this country today, at large ports and small. It should be stopped, and stopped by law. That, at least, we can do; because even if other countries are not doing it, there is an opportunity here for us to set a good example.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant) described the rather dismal scene in which we took part in the fish market in the early hours of the morning. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it was a very melancholy sight—those melancholy cod, with those awful

eyes turned up to heaven, and all condemned—and in my view very rightly condemned—to the dustbin. Before my hon. Friend came into the House of Commons there was another occasion when I had the opportunity to visit the fish market, shortly after a foreign trawler had arrived from a very long distance, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it was about a year before I could look at a piece of fish again. You never smelt anything like it, Sir. You could not believe it was possible that any smell could be so ferocious and linger so long. These are things which do not do the fishing trade any good. I agree that these stinking fish are no longer being landed, but immature fish are still being landed. All but the best fish should be prohibited from being landed; and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with that point.
So far as the herring industry is concerned, I regard this Bill as the coping stone of a long series of enactments affecting the herring industry over the last 20 years. It is, indeed, the logical conclusion of the recommendations, first of the Duncan Committee and then of the Elliot Committee. As long ago as 1943 I was moved to write in a modest little publication which I called, "The new Economy," that the fishermen had been partaking for fifty years in the greatest gamble in the world and very seldom had been the winners in this gamble; and I felt after the war there could be no return to what was known as the free market. I found that fishermen shared that view, and that everybody in this House now shares that view. We cannot go back to the free market. A few people may gain a great deal for a short time, but in the long run it is bad for everybody. I went on to write:
We want some kind of public corporation or board With statutory powers to buy herring on a contract basis, to allocate them to the various processing firms at home, and to market them abroad through a centralised selling agency.
A short time after that publication there came the publication of the Elliot Report; and I was delighted to find, having had no preview of that report, that our ideas, not for the first time, coincided. Then came the Bill of 1944. I felt very strongly at that time that the Bill did not go far enough, as regards the powers of the Herring Board either to inaugurate


marketing schemes, or to develop processing schemes. The Secretary of State at that time, Mr. Tom Johnston, expressed himself as satisfied, as did my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and we were all very anxious to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, not only in the interests of the herring industry, but because the day it was discussed on Second Reading, as some of my hon. Friends in the House may remember, was the grand slam day of the "doodlebugs." They were coming over in shoals, like bees, and I remember—I believe you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were in the Chair at the time—that every time one began to warm up to the theme of the argument, there came that awful buzz or purr, and which naturally made one hesitate. Then came the moment when the purr stopped, and one wondered what was going to happen next, and then crash, a slight hiccough, and one was able to carry on. It did militate against sustained intellectual application, and I think that may have been the reason why we did not carry out all the recommendations of the Elliot Report to their logical conclusion.
This Bill fills the gaps in the 1944 Act. It increases the grants. I think that is absolutely essential. Prices have risen, and it is absolutely essential that the scheme should be extended for another two or three years at any rate, and it is extended in this Bill. It enables the development of new processes to take place on an adequate scale, instead of on a merely experimental scale. It also enables the highly successful marketing scheme, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland referred, to be extended to other areas; that is to say, the scheme which has been in operation for the last two years in the Shetlands, and which has been to the fishermen an unexpected success, but to those of us who believe in maximum production an expected success. But it has had a great success, and some of us very much want to see that scheme extended, as it now can be.
This scheme will enable the fishermen to be offered by the Board that single price for all they catch, which I believe to be the ultimate aim for stability and prosperity in this industry. I should like to see the fishermen offered under this

Bill, and under the scheme which no doubt the Herring Board will introduce, a fixed price for all the herrings that they can produce; and then, on top of that, offered a bonus on all the additional profits made during the season. That, I am certain, is the final answer to this problem. It is not, after all, the business of the fishermen to market the fish; their business is to catch the fish.
It is the business of the Herring Board to market the fish; to take all the fish they can off the fishermen at a reasonable and fair price; to make their own arrangements to allocate the fish to the various processing firms; to export fish in the manner they think most conducive to the interests of the industry as a whole; and to make quite certain that the primary producer, the fisherman, gets full value for the work he has done during the season. That has been the principle applied, as I understand it, in the Shetlands during the last two years. It is the principle that I, quite frankly, want to see applied to the industry as a whole.
This Bill will enable that to be done. And, if it is done, it will mean what I have long preached and advocated; and I know I shall carry hon. Members on both sides of the House with me in this. It will mean capacity production. It will mean that the fleets can go to sea and catch all the herrings they can lay hold of. There will be no artificial shortages created, no boats tied up simply for the purpose of wangling the market, so that they get just enough herrings for the home market, leaving the greater part of this invaluable treasure lying about in the sea, when it ought to have been taken out.
I have preached that doctrine for many years, with varying success; but the success is now beginning to grow, and the conversions are increasing. I certainly assure hon. Members that my advice will continue to be: go and catch all the herrings you can get, and get the best single price you can for the whole lot. The Bill will also mean—and I am rather pleased about this—a simplifying and a speeding up of the machinery of these various schemes. That is important.
One Clause which worries me a little is Clause 8, which, on the face of it, gives the Minister very wide powers of direction. It could, if he chose to abuse those powers, make him a sort of Hitler of


this industry, because apparently he can give directions to the Herring Industry Board, provided he can get his colleague from Scotland to agree, and tell them exactly what their plans must be this way and that. I would only say this. If he really wants to become the Fuehrer of this industry, then we on this side of the House will have to object. But if the object of this Clause is merely to enable the necessary steps to be taken quickly to facilitate and speed up procedure; and if the Minister gives an assurance that he will work in collaboration with the Herring Industry Board, and not give them peremptory directions against their wishes, exercising in an arbitrary and Fascist manner the powers that he is asking us to give him, clearly that would greatly relieve us.
The great advantage of this Bill seems to me to be that it brings the herring industry under one unifying and, we hope, constructive control, and takes it away from four competing, and very largely destructive, controls. The control of this industry has rested for the last few years with the Department of Fisheries in Scotland, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and, incidentally, with the Herring Industry Board; but the interests of all those various Departments have not necessarily coincided, and there were sometimes great differences between them. The difficulties of getting decisions on matters of policy that should have been taken very quickly have been enormous; and have been the cause of a great deal of trouble in the past. I feel that probably the greatest single advance made under this Bill is that at last we have one controlling authority for this industry, instead of all these various Departments passing the buck from one to another—when they are not actually fighting one another.
Before sitting down, I want to take a considerable amount of credit to myself and to my hon. Friends for this Bill. A year ago I went to see the Minister of Food, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence), my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), and my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). We pressed upon the Minister of Food the urgent necessity of giving the Herring Industry Board far greater powers and of setting it in control over this industry. I may say

to the Minister of Agriculture—and I do not think he will be altogether surprised when I tell him this—that the immediate reaction of the Minister of Food was by no means favourable, because he recognised very clearly that what we were pressing him to do was to shed a great many of the powers which his Department were at that time exercising, and continued to exercise for some months afterwards, over the herring industry. This Bill, in effect, takes away a great many of the powers of the Minister of Food over this industry and gives them to the Herring Industry Board.
I should like here to pay my modest tribute to the Minister of Food—a bitter political enemy, but a great personal friend of mine—who at present is not here, although he ought to be. After much travail, labour and anxiety—because no Minister likes to give up control or power—he has seen the light; he has been converted; he is the man who, in the main, has given up power in order to make this Bill possible and successful. The Minister of Agriculture has, by comparison, given up very little; also, he has a greater control over the Herring Board than the Minister of Food—as has the Secretary of State for Scotland. He needs to shed no crocodile tears over this Bill. But this is really a sad day for the Minister of Food, because he has to give up a lot. However, his Department have, on the whole, made a persistent and consistent mess of this industry for the last seven years; and I am not sorry to see their grip relaxed. I know they have done their best; but I also know that they have failed.
There it is. At this juncture, I only wish to see a really advanced view taken of this problem—the view which was originally taken on this side of the House. It was our party which put these rather revolutionary proposals before the Government. We begged them to take this bold action, and even to go a little further. Our only complaint now—and as it is of some hon. Members opposite—is that the Bill does not go quite far enough. Hon. Members opposite think we are reactionary. We are so far ahead of them on this, as on all other matters, that they really cannot see us. That is the truth of the matter. But we have not got the power. All we can do is to kick the Government along as hard as we can, and as often as we can, in


the hope that they will do something. Usually, in about 12 months they do something—but never quite enough.
There is one other point I should like to mention. We have until 11 o'clock, so the right hon. Gentleman need not be alarmed about the time. I should therefore like to put this point, which is more important than many that have been advanced, whatever other hon. Members may think. I do so agree with the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) that on the whole this quick-freezing process is the greatest hope for this industry. I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Colman), who was talking about some deplorable expert who had said that quick-freezing was no good, and that herrings which were quick-frozen dilapidated, or collapsed, or something, as soon as they were unfrozen. Nobody ever anticipated that those herrings would be thawed and then left lying about in the kitchen for several days. They are frozen so that they can be kept: they should not he thawed until they come to be eaten.
I would assure hon. Members opposite—and I wish the hon. Lady were still here—that I have been to the Torry Institute in Aberdeen, which has carried out the greatest research into quick freezing. I have had placed in front of me fresh and kippered herrings, some absolutely fresh, and some which have been quick frozen for several months. Every time, the herring that I chose as the most delectable and delicious was the one that had been quick-frozen. The hon. Member cannot have eaten quick-frozen herrings. I assure her they are absolutely delicious. The hon. Lady is quite wrong; and I hope she will take the earliest opportunity of going to the Torry Institute at Aberdeen, where she can eat quick-frozen herrings to her heart's content. The more she eats, the more she will want to eat.
I would say to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Scotland, through his Under-Secretary, with all due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. NevenSpence) that when it comes to disposing of really big surpluses, whatever may have happened before the 1914 war, there are only two really big herring fishings in the year. One is the summer fishing, off

the East Coast of Scotland, in which I admit Lerwick plays a part, but where the centre has been situated for many years at Fraserburgh and Peterhead; the other is the great autumn fishing off Yarmouth and Lowestoft. These are the occasions of the really big catches. Therefore, these are the places where the Herring Industry Board should concentrate their plans, both for the production of oil and for quick-freezing on a big scale. I hope they will co-operate with private interests. Judging from the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham—and I pressed him on one or two points—he is only too eager to co-operate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Herring Board to make early contact with my hon. Friend, who is apparently prepared to sell a tremendous number of frozen herrings and is confident he can sell the whole lot in a few days. He sold the whole Shetland lot last year in half an hour, and he tells me he can sell practically all he can get.
It is rather remarkable that this is one of the only industries where a third of the total raw material is imported—gratuitously and, to my mind, unnecessarily, from Norway. It is a bad third, the worst third, the coarsest third; but think of the scope that would give those who are anxious to exploit the home market by means of quick-freezing. I do not think anybody would disagree that, if we can avoid these importations of large, coarse herring, with which we have been afflicted during the last two months from Norway, it will be a good thing for the industry and the trade as a whole. We do not want them; they do not kipper well. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland discussed how, at one of our new British Railway hotels, he ate one of these kippered Norwegian herrings and made a mental resolution not to touch kippers again for six months. I do not blame him. They do a lot of damage to the trade. We should never have had them. They have kept down the West Coast fishing, which promised to be good. If we can develop the quick-freezing process on a good scale, it will be unnecessary ever to import them again.
I differ on one point only from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. I think we must include oil as well as quick-freezing. Oil is absolutely vital to this country; fats are almost our greatest need. I would say from surplus herrings only,


however; and that we must secure fair prices for the fishermen. Why not? As somebody has pointed out—I think it was the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities—we are spending between £20 and £30 million on the development of a groundnut scheme in East Africa, which may or may not produce oils in the next five or six years. I say frankly that I am not opposed to that scheme, because I am a great believer in long-term imperial development. But I do say that it is fantastic, if we are prepared to spend between £20 and £30 million in developing a long-term groundnuts scheme in East Africa, that we should not spend a few thousand pounds in extracting oil from the herrings that teem in the North Sea, and which can be got this year; even if it involves, and I think it should involve, a certain subsidy to the fishermen. They should not be asked to catch herrings at an uneconomic price.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give serious consideration to this aspect of the matter. He knows well that costs are high, and are rising; labour and field costs are already very high, and the costs of nets is also prohibitive. Costs are rising against the fisherman all the time. Raising the price for herrings for oil from 30s. to 35s. a cran was not enough. We could get nearer to a solution by adopting the method I have advocated, of one price. We should not ask fishermen to fish for herring for oil at an uneconomic price. We should spend a little money and subsidise the fisherman to get oil, not in five, six or seven years' time, but now—this year and next year.. Oil is vital, and that would be money well spent.
Reference to the home market has been made by hon. Members opposite, and particularly by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. There is scope for tremendous expansion in this market, and I hope the Board will pursue this suggestion. For so many years we have heard the same old stories about dyeing kippers and cooking kippers. The hon. Member for Lowestoft also referred to cooking a fresh herring. Here, in one sentence, is the way a fresh herring should be cooked: split it, take the central bone out, dip it in a barrel of good Scotch oatmeal, and fry it. I wish the English would learn how to do it.

Mrs. Mann: That is quite wrong. I do not think the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) knows anything at all about getting the best flavour from herrings. They should never be fried, but grilled.

Mr. Boothby: I disagree with the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann). I sometimes like a grilled herring, but the best herring of the lot—and I have the support of the whole Moray Firth—is the herring dipped in the barrel of good Scotch oatmeal and fried.

Mr. Spearman: Perhaps the hon. Member would teach the proper method to the kitchen staff?

Mr. Boothby: I have told them, not just once or twice, but over and over again.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): This is somewhat outside the scope of the argument.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not think we should complain, because there is nothing more exciting at the present time of starvation than talking about food. It cheers us all up. I think the hon. Lady is wrong. A cat would not take a grilled herring off a plate—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is not the occasion for knowing how to cook fish and I think hon. Members should confine their remarks to the question at issue.

Mr. Boothby: This point was really raised by the hon. Member for Lowestoft. Once when they had been cooked the right way, I ate eight of these herrings straight off. That was when I was coming back from the fishing grounds in a drifter in the early morning after I had been seasick. That was the most delicious meal I had ever tasted.
I come next to the development of the industry on the West coast. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) is not here. He was very rough with me last night, but today he has given me the moral right to address the House on behalf of the herring industry, which yesterday he denied to me. Today, therefore, I have both a constitutional and a moral right.
An extremely important fishing on the West Coast takes place from Castlebay at a special time of the year. There they catch the Matje herring. I shall not be out of Order here, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because you do not cook a Matje, but simply put it under the tap and then straight into your mouth. It is better than caviar; it is the highest form of luxury; it is magnificent. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but they cannot have eaten a Matje, otherwise they would know that there is nothing to touch it. It goes to America, where it is sold at an enormous price. It could be caught if the Herring Board would take sufficiently energetic steps under this Bill. This fishing must be revived. It is fishing of the highest order; and we can earn many dollars with it, although I hope that a few barrels of this fish will be reserved for this country—and at least one for me.
I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not sought any compulsory powers in regard to fishermen. Whatever the hon. Member for Lowestoft may say, we shall get nothing out of the Scotish fisherman by trying to discipline him and make him fish on terms or conditions under which he does not want to fish; in fact, you will not make anyone in Scotland do anything he does not want to do; and that is why we remain the greatest nation on earth. It is no good the hon. Member thinking that he can drive the Scottish fishermen against their will; and if he tries, they will only fight back. We must have their confidence and co-operation. There is no other way, and that is the way it must be done under this Bill. I could not support the Bill if there were any element of compulsion about it. Scottish fishermen cannot be made to fish if they do not want to.

Mr. Edward Evans: Then will the hon. Member see that no obstacle is put in the way of English fishermen, if they do not want to conform with Scottish practice?

Mr. Boothby: We have come to a happy agreement about this Sunday business and everyone is in a much more congenial mood. I hope that the hon. Member will not go on talking about that because it only puts ideas into their heads. The Scottish fishermen will play their part, as they have done in the past. Their main

business, and that of the English fishermen, is to catch herrings; and they cannot catch herrings without houses to live in, harbours to work from, coal to drive the drifters, and, above all, nets to put into the sea. The Government have drifted along for far too long on this net business. No one can deny that there was a very critical moment when they allowed herring nets vital to this industry to be exported; and it was not for several months that they grasped the danger and put a stop to it.
We are now suffering from a desperate shortage of nets; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some assurance tonight that he will put all the pressure he can on the President of the Board of Trade to see that no more nets are exported until the needs of the herring fishermen, and all the other fishermen, are completely satisfied. It is outrageous that we should export nets when we are in a half-starved condition in this country. Our harbours are still in very bad condition, our coal is of extremely bad quality and of very high price, and our houses are in almost as short supply as our nets. These are the raw materials, and we cannot expect the fishermen to do all that they can do for the people of this country unless we supply them with the essentials of their craft in order that they may pursue their arduous task. At the moment, too, many of these essentials are being withheld.
I have said, inside this House and outside it, on many occasions, that the future of this industry mainly depends on cooperation between the Herring Board, armed with adequate powers, and every section of the herring industry. It is co-operation, based upon mutual confidence, that really matters. Under this Bill, we have at least given the Herring Board the powers which they require, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having done so. The Herring Board will never be able to say again, "We are sorry we made a muck of this, but we had not the necessary powers." They can now be held responsible by the fishermen if they do make a muck of it, but I do not think that they will.
Equally, the fishermen have their responsibility; but, if there is genuine co-operation between the Board and the industry as a whole, I think that the industry has a great future, based, for the


first time, on assured markets and stabilised prices. If that is the case, I do not despair altogether of the hard-cured herring export market in Central and Eastern Europe. We may even get the hard-cured herring behind the "iron curtain" before we have finished; and, if we can succeed, we may also get them to take a more genial view of politics generally, and of this country in particular. I do not think that we should give up hopes of exporting hard-cured herrings to those regions, because they have been accustomed to them in the past; and I think that the only effective contact with those countries we can hope to have for some considerable time to come will be by trade of a barter character. If we can sell some of our herrings in exchange for some of their feedingstuffs, what could be a better proposition from both points of view?
I take an optimistic view; and while I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been a little more daring—he is like the Government generally, so frightfully cautious and a little bit niggardly—I think that this Bill represents a big step in the right direction, and I thank the Government for bringing it in, because I believe it will mark another milestone, perhaps the last for some time, on the road back to prosperity for a very great industry.

9.9 P.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure that Members of the Government will feel very much obliged to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) who has just given them such generous praise. He has not just damned with faint praise or praised with faint damns, but his general benediction of the Bill has been wholehearted, and I wish that when he was speaking the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) had been here to hear his general commendation of the enterprise carried out by a semi-public enterprise as compared with the anarchy of private enterprise that existed in the fishing industry before the war. I welcomed the last passage in his speech in which he recalled the days in which we used to trade our fish with Russia. I thoroughly agreed with his proposition that if we talk in terms of herring to the people behind the "Iron Curtain," we shall get much nearer to understanding

than if we talk in terms of the old diplomacy and of power politics.
I want for a few moments to deal with the position of the Clyde fishing fleet. I spent a week in January in very stormy weather, on the Clyde, where I went out with the fishermen who live in the little village of Maidens. For a week we fished in Loch Fyne, and during that time I came into contact, for the first time in my life, with the actual day-to-day and night-to-night experiences of the fishermen. It was a very interesting and helpful experience, and I can assure the hon. Member for East Aberdeen that although he says he bores the House with the subject of herring, he and I will always be allies in helping the people who work to bring herring to the markets of our cities, towns and countryside.
We have heard about the need for harbours, and I believe it is absolutely essential that if we are to encourage our herring fishermen they should get the harbours they deserve. Upon the harbours of some of these small fishing communities rests the future prosperity and economic life of the picturesque sea-fishing villages which are so essential to the economic life of the west coast of Scotland. While I was with the Clyde fishing fleet we had some nights of very good fishing, which resulted in gluts. We went back to places like Tarbet, in Loch Fyne, and Ayr, to find the ports closed so that the fishermen could not get rid of their fish. There is something wrong with that, and I believe this Bill will greatly assist methods of distribution. I entirely endorse what was said by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen about the need for one buyer and a centralised agency to market herring. It was tragic to note that there were shoals of fish waiting to be caught and marketed, while men were ready and eager to make their contribution. Through ports being closed fishermen could not dispose of their herring at a time when people on the mainland were hungry for fresh fish.
We brought the fish back to the town of Ayr, where lorries were waiting at the quayside. The fish were taken to London in two lorries from a little place called Trabboch, within a short distance of the coast. These lorries had to travel for 12 hours before the fish was put into Billingsgate market. Yet in little mining villages,


in the town of Ayr, in Kilmarnock, in Glasgow, and the west of Scotland generally, people had not seen fish for weeks. I hope that by a new system of distribution the home market will be organised in such a way as will enable our people, who are now short of fats, proteins and meat, to get the fish which would be such an important part of their diet.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to do his share, as I know he will, because he has this matter at heart. I hope he will get repairs done to the harbours in places where the people are dependent upon the fishing industry and where the harbours need to be dredged. It is hard for these fishermen to bring their fishing boats into a place like Maidens and anchor them safely there for the weekend. They have to take the 'bus back to Girvan, because the harbour is silted up. I appeal to the Secretary of State to help these little fishing communities by restoring their harbours to them, and in this way giving an economic prosperity to these places.
I want to say a word about the imports of Norwegian fish. About a fortnight ago, I asked a very innocent question on this subject, and with great relish the hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) asked me, "Where is your internationalism now?" I must confess that I was a little disconcerted by that remark, but I was expressing the point of view of the fishermen of the West Coast, who are constantly pressing upon me questions as to why so much Norwegian herring is coming into the country when they cannot market their fish, or have to sell it at the lowest price. I hope there will be some marketing arrangements so that if Norway needs our coal we shall insist that not so much Norwegian fish should come into this country but Norwegian wooden houses instead, which would be a good bargain from our point of view, as well as helping the Scottish fishermen to sell their fish in their own home market.
We have had a most helpful and interesting debate, and constructive contributions have been made in a spirit of goodwill and good fellowship. I, for one, do not grudge my tribute to the Elliot Committee, nor do I grudge paying a tribute to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen because of the years in which he has

put this question of the herring industry before the House, even though he has done it in a humorous manner. In the years which are to come, if we concentrate more of the business brains of the country, like that of the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson), who put forward constructive proposals in regard to cold storage on this industry, we shall make even greater progress, and get more fish on the tables of our people, which would be preferable to trailing to the southern end of the earth for Argentine chilled meat.
Further, we would be establishing a sound economy in this country, enabling the fishing industry to play a useful and helpful part. No doubt, too, we could get international agreements with Spain, with Poland, and with the countries behind the "Iron Curtain," and so through this industry build up a system of common understanding with the idea of helping all those who need help in any way. I welcome this Bill, and I am quite sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has spent so much of his time in the fishing industry, will do his share in making this scheme a success, which I am sure is the desire of all Members of the House, whatever their political opinions may be.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: This Debate is different from that which we experienced last night. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) tells me that it is very much better. Then we reached the highest states of emotion. Now we are more or less on ground level.
The first thing we need in the matter that we are discussing is to find the fish. For some strange reason the Firth of Forth which, for 1,000 years has had a visit from large numbers of herrings in the winter months, has not had that visit in the last two or three years. In the last three or four years we have had something like a complete dearth of herrings, and the recent winter has been quite a disaster. Not a herring has been caught. That is a very serious matter. The Joint Under-Secretary of State was kind enough to pay us a visit in Fife the other day, and he knows how serious this matter is. I know that the Scottish Office have a boat sailing up and down the firth inquiring into the matter. Not only herrings have


gone out of the firth, but white fish also. There must be other firths and bays in Scotland where a similar change has taken place.
What is the cause of it? The matter is under investigation and I hope that the researches now being carried out will take account not only of the conditions of the sea bottom, the temperature of the water and the current, but of the points raised by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), namely, the methods that have been adopted in fishing. Many old and skilled men in the Firth of Forth tell me that the seine net is responsible for the destruction of the white fish and the herrings. Whether that is true or not, I do not know, but the view is held with the greatest possible strength by some of the most respected men in the district. The seine net seems to be of universal application, nevertheless it is proved to be a method that destroys, and I suggest that the method needs investigation.
Having found the fish in the water, the next thing is to catch them. We catch them with boats. There is a great need for boats now. As the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, we are building boats in Fife. We have a good many boats on the stocks and they have been there for a long time. They will remain there, unless we get engines for them. I know that the Joint Under-Secretary is doing what he can in this matter, but I appeal beyond him to the Government. These engines ought to be made available for the new boats, but they are not available because they are being exported. That cannot make sense. It is wrong that this position should be allowed to continue. I have asked that the Minister who replies should deal precisely with that point. I am very much obliged to the Joint Under-Secretary for a letter which I have had from him. I am somewhat encouraged by it. He tells me in the letter, if I remember it aright, that he thinks that the productive capacity of the country is now able to supply all the nets we need in a year. I hope that is true. We have great difficulty in believing it at the present time.
Having caught the fish, we have to see that they are landed. Here again I apply a practical test. The Joint Under-Secretary was at one of my harbours in Pittenweem and he saw the place and the danger. It is the most active of the three

ports in Fife, getting far more fish than the others. He saw that the harbour needs substantial improvement. He very kindly put up some suggestions and I know that he will do his very best to push them forward. We depend and rely upon him. We valued his visit, and we shall be greatly disappointed if, as a result of it, one or other of the schemes is not carried out. I instance that only as an example, because there must be hundreds of places like it in Scotland.
When we have found the fish, caught them and landed them, they have to be sold. As regards herrings, there is no doubt that the Government are right at last in giving the Herring Industry Board powers to manage the industry as one unit. I have always been in favour of that. However, do not let us think that that is all there is to be done. On the white fish side, organisation for selling is equally necessary. I had some considerable interest in the creation of the White Fish Commission before the war, and it ought to be re-formed as soon as possible. Only by means of large-scale organisation of this type can any success be achieved, and the fishing industry is no exception to that rule. I therefore plead for the early re-establishment of that Commission.
This is another of many Bills of the kind which we have seen. Those who have been in the House a long time have seen us advancing step by step. I must admit that we now seem to make more rapid progress than we did in the early days. I do not know whether that is the result of the Labour Government; I cannot believe it, and I interpret it rather as proof that the country and the House, as result of the exhortations of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) and the rest of us for 15 to 20 years, have become herring and white fish conscious and are beginning to realise that something must be done—

Mr. David Jones: There are plenty of red herrings about.

Mr. Stewart: The fact remains that the House of Commons is alive to the importance of this question, and I am glad of it.

9.27 p.m.

Colonel Wheatley: We have heard a great deal about herring


fishing, fishing in the North Sea and fishing in the South-west, and I now want to say a word about the fishermen on the South coast. I grant that their industry cannot compare in size with the great herring fisheries, but they deserve some consideration, and I commend this Bill in that it helps them in the way of increasing the loans and grants for their fishing tackle. These men an the South coast have served the country well. In the days of Dunkirk they went in their small boats along the South coast and did what they could. Some lost their boats and others lost a good deal of their gear. That cost them a lot of money, and many of them have not been able to raise sufficient money to replace the gear and boats they lost.
I am sorry to say that a great number of these fishermen have turned to the less romantic industry of taking tourists round the sights. People in the North and the Midlands come to the South coast when they retire in order to end their lives in happiness and they like to be taken round to see the sights, and consequently a great many fishermen have given up their more romantic industry of fishing in order to take these people round. In spite of that, they do some fishing and at certain times there is a great glut of fish which it is difficult to get rid of. I regret to see this fish thrown on the fields. The Minister of Agriculture may not mind that, but it seems to me a waste of food when fish—sprats particularly—are thrown on the ground to be used as manure.
If such gluts could be dealt with by the quick-freezing of which we have heard so much, it would be of great advantage to the food supplies of the country. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) is not here. I should like to draw his attention to a place where he can get a supply of fish for his quick-freezing apparatus, for one sees these ships coming in laden with fish for which the fishermen can get practically nothing—a few pence a bushel. If something could be done to meet that situation it would help these men and the food supply of the country. I commend this Bill, and with other hon. Members I feel sure it will be of great benefit to the fishing industry of the country.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I feel quite sure that all hon. Members will have found this Debate interesting and instructive. I feel equally certain that the Debate will have helped the industry at large. Also, I think that all will agree, in relation to the discussion of the Bill before us to-night, that the Debate has ranged more—and properly so on Second Reading—over the much larger matter of the future of this great industry than just the confines of the Bill. When the Debate was opened by the Minister, he formally explained the Bill to us. It appeared to me that he dealt only with the Bill and did not give sufficient emphasis to the great potential of this industry.
We in the United Kingdom are, in fact, the greatest producers of fish at the present time. Not only that, but with our great Empire and Commonwealth, and the seaboard we possess, it is my belief that if we really applied our minds to this question of the utilisation of fish throughout these seas, it would not only help to save our own economic position but might help to ease the food position of the world. I go as far as that with regard to this industry. In times of difficulty such as we are facing today, one can afford to have a "New Look" into an industry of this sort.
Before going any further, upon the fashion of the "New Look," let us dwell for a moment upon what the industry consists of in the United Kingdom, and the different potentials which this industry could in fact provide. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) mentioned the different experiments which are going forward in relation to extracting albumen from herring. Only a short time ago I put a question on that subject to the Ministry of Food. In South Africa these experiments are going on, and the results from them, and the different products that can be made, are extraordinarily interesting.
At this moment we have an industry of about 500 steam drifters, 8,000 inshore fishing vessels, about 860 middle-water steam trawlers and 225 distant water trawlers. If we go forward with this industry I believe that total can be increased without any question of over-fishing. At the same time, the cost of building is now, as we know, three times


as much as it was before the war. I have heard many hon. Members mention during this Debate the great help which this Bill will give in the raising of loans. I would be the last to say that is not the case, but do not let us, here in Westminster, make too much of it. During the last two and a half years these costs have risen very considerably and grants and loans in proportion to that cost are, in fact, less than they would have been two and a half years ago. Gear has not only risen in price, but will rise further. When there is new development in gear, such as radar—and no doubt the Minister is aware that there is one fully equipped vessel now on the East Coast—it will be realised that the cost is great, and is likely to become greater. But as more vessels are equipped in this manner, the fish will come into port that degree earlier and will be that degree fresher for all the processing which is necessary.
There are other matters of difficulty which the industry has had recently to face. Those who have an interest in the industry are not likely to forget the sudden announcement that the cost of coal was going up by 25s. a ton, without any consultation at all with the fishing industry. Immediately everyone raised an uproar, quite properly and rightly, and we were thankful when it was taken off. Even so, we must not be forgetful that whereas before we had a cost of £1 1s. 9d. a ton, it is now £2 12S. 0d. a ton, which makes the operation of these vessels fairly costly.
The importance of the inshore fishing industry has been mentioned. I think that the Minister will share with me a grateful feeling towards that industry, and acknowledge that it is only through the inshore fishing industry of this country that we have ultimately been able to develop the great fisheries in the way in which we have done. The Debate was opened by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) very quickly made reference to the question of Scotland and the question of England. I think he acted properly in so doing, because, although the question of the fishing industry in Scotland is a matter of major importance, it is right to remember that, of the volume of wet fish landed in the United Kingdom, only 30 per cent. is actually landed in

Scotland. Therefore, England does play a great part in these matters.
The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) made reference to and described that great fishing port. As he has done that, I think it is right also to make reference to Grimsby and to remember the three great fishing docks and the water area of 63 acres, and that there are about 4,000 fishermen and 8,700 dock workers. There are the great ports of Fleetwood, Milford Haven, Yarmouth and Lowestoft which should be mentioned, and let us not forget the development that can happen elsewhere. Brixham and Plymouth were once great fishing ports. I remember some 20 years ago seeing a vast number of vessels in Plymouth. And even in 1872 there were 66 vessels. The House might also bear in mind and reflect on the fact that the Plymouth Laboratory, set up in 1888, was the first laboratory in the United Kingdom to go into these matters relating to fish. There again, when we pass out of England, we come to the ports of Cornwall. I have spoken many times of their importance.
I do not think that, even now, the complexity of the fishing industry is fully realised, nor do I think that sufficient emphasis is given to industries which exist by the maintenance of a strong fishing fleet. The small boat-builders should be given help, and should not have difficulties over licences. Then there are the questions of the nets to catch the fish, the boxes to hold them, the transport to carry them and the ice with which to keep them. All these are matters that have to be co-ordinated in order to give help to the fishing industry.
Many hon. Members including the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. and learned Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman), have referred to the White Fish Commission. No doubt, the Minister may remember that, over two years ago, I put this point to him, and I have been putting Questions to him ever since. To start with, the right hon. Gentleman said that the matter would be considered, and then it got to "active consideration," and there it stopped. That was the last answer he gave, but I trust that tonight he may say a little more about it. In November last, he may remember that I spoke about over-fishing, and, in that speech, I made reference to the heading of fish. I would


like to draw the Minister's attention to that matter again and to the answer which he gave me, when he said that there was not sufficient information about pollution. Even if there is not, the Minister will remember that the critical time for stowing fish on vessels is when that fish is landed, and that, if the heading of the fish is carried out, there is more delay in stowing of the fish and it has an effect on the freshness of the landings of fish. I would like him to reconsider that matter.
Tonight, we are discussing a Bill introduced for the purpose of greatly increasing the fish supplies to this country, and one question which I want to ask the Minister is this: can he tell me why, under the Marshall Plan, provision is made for the importation of nearly £11 million worth of fish in the first year? No doubt, the Minister has a very reasonable answer to that question, but I would like to know what it is. Our object is to avoid the importation of what we have got already. There is nothing new about bringing a Bill before the House to restrict fishermen from taking immature fish. A Bill came before this House in the time of Edward III, in 1376. In fact, it was a petition to this House, in which, if hon. Members are interested, there is this phrase:
The fishermen take such quantities of small fish that they do not know what to do with them, and that they feed and fat their pigs with them to the great danger of the Commons of the Realm and the destruction of the fisheries and they pray for a remedy.
That is going back somewhat, but we find that in 1571 we had a similar type of Bill placed on the Statute Book by Queen Elizabeth. On 12th November last, when I spoke on the Motion for the Adjournment about over-fishing, as hon. Members may remember, one of the points I stressed was this:
Is this the time not to have invited Spain to that Advisory Committee?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 498.]
I never got a reply with which I was satisfied. Here is a matter where we wish to get international agreement with regard to over-fishing. If we are going first to hold a council, as we did in March, 1946, and then set up an advisory committee, and then see fit not to ask Spain to come to that committee, it just does not make

sense. What we want to do is to get agreements over these matters and see that these conventions are agreed to by all the people who fish, so that over-fishing does not occur. I sincerely trust that the Minister will see fit to give me some answer on this matter.
I would like to ask the Minister if he would kindly inform us whether any further countries have, or have not, signed this agreement. While I am on that point, may I remind hon. Members that Germany is not included in those countries. My right hon. Friend made references to that today and I sincerely trust we shall not suddenly find, owing to the great shortage of food, an enormous German fleet fishing on the North Sea. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has spoken in his wonderful way and his masterly fashion on the question of herring and on the importance of meal and oil. I think that is right. Here we are, desperately short of oil and all forms of feedingstuffs, and if this great industry can help us in this country, as I feel it can, and not just feel that these fish are only waste but are actually providing something of great benefit to this country in our economic need, it will be important.
Dealing with small vessels, and nets and the size of the mesh, I trust that when the Minister answers tonight he will assure us that where we have a smaller vessel owned by the share fishermen, adequate time will be given to them, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Ives suggested, in order that they may have sufficient facilities for obtaining these new forms of net. Not only will there be the difficulty of obtaining them, but there will also be the question of cost.
No doubt the Minister will remember that half-way down page 4 of the Bill, on line 19, it states:
Herring, mackerel, sprats and pilchards.
I want to ask him to give consideration, between now and Committee stage, to the addition of the words "white bait and sardines." I do not think he will object to that. The hon. and learned Member for St. Ives mentioned the question of the 75-foot M.F.V. and I strongly support the speech that he made on that point. I wish the Minister would reconsider this matter. I first mentioned it in my maiden speech in 1945; no doubt the


Minister will not remember that, but such was the case. I realise that if we extend the length to 75 feet, we will have also to make larger grants. But at the same time, with these vessels getting larger and with the question of the economy of fishing being studied to a greater extent, I believe the inclusion of the 75-foot vessel within the Inshore Fishing Bill would be an increasingly good Measure.
The hon. and learned Member for St. Ives also mentioned that he had heard from the Sea Fisheries Committee, in Cornwall, as have I, about the question of these words "in case of need." The grants are only to be made in case of need. I trust that in winding up tonight the Minister will give a little explanation on this matter. I do not believe that he really means that small sums of capital should be included in these cases. I would like to make the point, because I put it to him two years ago on the Inshore Fishing Act. At that time he may have been talking about a certain figure, and he spoke of working capital, or whatever we might call it, but since then the purchasing value of the pound has gone down. I will not go into the reasons for that. Therefore, he should consider considerably raising that datum line. I think that is a reasonable request, and I hope that the Minister will look at it in that light.
There are in the Bill certain provisions dealing with co-operative societies, and I should like to take this opportunity of putting something before the Minister. The Rye, Dungeness and District Inshore Fishermen's Protection Association have written me a letter on this subject. True, they ask me to put this before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food; and I expected her to be on the Government Front Bench tonight, for she has a lot to do with this. The Association say:
We all took great exception to that remark, and you may now like to advise Dr. Edith Summerskill that during the last month the Rye Co-operative Society has completely failed to compete with the open market, and last week only managed to pay 4s. per stone for plaice large and small together, with the result that the boats have ceased selling them and have gone to open markets at Hastings and Brighton.
Those matters should certainly be considered by the Minister before he gets too one-sided on this subject.
No Bill, or anything else which is introduced here, will, of itself, help the industry; but there are certain ways in which the Minister can help the industry—and certain ways in which I trust he will. At the present moment a man who may have got a licence to build, and has his vessel, is fishing and bringing in his catches, may be called up. He is not protected as is the agricultural worker. Yet such men are producing food; and if they are called up their vessels may have to lie idle, with no crews to man them. Does it make sense? The Minister probably knows that at this moment I can instance a case in which that is, in fact, happening.
Again and again I have raised the question of soap for fishermen's wives. I agree that is not in the Bill. But remember, the fishermen's wives have to try to clean clothes which are absolutely soaked with salt, when they have not sufficient soap. Yet the Ministry of Food will do nothing about it. There is one thing which apparently nobody else has noticed today. I have been here listening to the Debate from its commencement, but I have not seen a representative of the Admiralty on the Government Front Bench; yet the Admiralty have a great deal to do with these matters. After all, the fishery protection vessels and the Fishing Protection Fleet play a vital part in this. In 1945 I made reference to them, but I did not get a very good answer. In November of last year I again made reference to them, and got an exceptionally bad answer. It was not long after that, as hon. Members may remember, that we had some trouble in the Channel. I trust that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries will press upon the Admiralty the necessity for these fishery protection vessels.
I feel that this Debate has been of benefit, and I hope that the few remarks I have made will be answered by the Minister, who has plenty of time tonight There is no question of trying to rush through the proceedings. There is over an hour to go. If by any chance the Minister does not answer any particular point it will be either because he does not want to answer, or because he cannot answer. There will be no excuse at all. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members share with me, not only the hope


that we shall see a great fishing industry in this country, but the feeling that this industry may well play a major part in helping to solve the world economic problems.

9.55 P.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): One might have expected this to be an interesting Debate. There has been a good deal of repetition, but that was inevitable as all hon. Members felt keenly on some point or other which can be paralleled in many fishing ports in this country. I am pleased that there was a hearty welcome from all sides of the House for this Bill, which has been described by some as being too late and too small. I was pleased that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) intervened at an early stage. He had every right to do so in view of his ministerial activities in the past and the fact that he had presided over one of the Committees which gave a report, part of whose recommendations finds its way into this small Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's observation on the value of fish caught could not be over-estimated. As I have said before, it is not generally understood that we land twice as much fish as we produce beef in this country. It is an extremely valuable foodstuff and we should not underestimate the real importance of our fishing industry, whether it be white fish, pelagic fish or anything else.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the 1946 Conference and Convention. I say at the outset that the Government did not delay in initiating international conversations for securing a covention on over-fishing. The Government initiated the first move by convening the Conference; our representatives exercised all the influence they could to prevent over-fishing such as that witnessed after the first world war. If we have failed to secure complete ratification of the Convention and the final act, it is no fault of the present Government; all our influence is continually exercised to persuade signatory nations to come to conclusions as quickly as possible. Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Sweden, as well as the United Kingdom, have ratified the Convention. These countries at any rate

have taken the step for the final act. I understand that the reason for some delay was that certain countries had not the power to take steps as rapidly as some other nations. We have every reason to believe, however, that the Convention will be finally and completely ratified and that we shall be in a position, within two months of the last nation ratifying it, to apply the Convention and to see that it is applied by other countries. The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question about what was going to happen two months from the last signature.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It may be years.

Mr. Williams: I hope that it is not only not going to be years: I hope that it will not be very many months, but one cannot say. All one can do is to exercise such influence as one may; that influence is being used as reasonably and decently as possible.
I was asked about the construction of fishing vessels in Germany; what part they may play in fishing in the North Sea, thereby endangering future supplies for this country. The construction of fishing vessels in Germany is subject to control by the Allied Control Commission. Germany will be required to adopt conservation measures equivalent to those proposed for the United Kingdom. Therefore, there is no danger in that direction.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I would point out that I also mentioned the possibility of Germany acquiring fishing vessels. Will that also come under Allied control?

Mr. Williams: Exactly. Any fishing vessels owned by Germany, while the Control Commission is there, will be more or less under the control of the Allied Commission, and Germany will have to comply with such regulations as apply to this country. With regard to enforcement, that can and will, I hope, be carried out by each participating country. Fishery officers of each nation will have power to board vessels at sea or on arrival at port, and confiscate any illegal meshes should it be found that the right mesh has not been used. In the Convention itself ample power is taken under Article II, which reads as follows:
The contracting Governments agree to take, in their territories and in regard to


their vessels to which this Convention applies, appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisions of this Convention and the punishment of infractions of the said provisions.
If we are satisfied that we ought to do the right thing, having attached our signature to the Convention we must expect other countries to be equally decent in the matter. I do not think that we can go beyond that.
I repeat the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's words, that we cannot overestimate the value of fishing in this country, and we cannot overestimate the danger of over-fishing in the North Sea. While it is true that the United Kingdom took only 25 per cent. of the fish from the North Sea in prewar years, it is equally true to say that that fish is high quality fish, without which we should have a very poor diet of cod. It is in our interest that we should do all we can, and for others to do what we think they ought to do, to ensure that there is a continuity of the high quality fish caught in the North Sea.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) asked a question about long-term policy. I can only say—and this will perhaps answer the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall)—that the question of long-term policy and the White Fish Commission are now under energetic consideration. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Member for Bodmin. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles also thought that we ought to give co-operative societies not only loans, but grants. Perhaps he is not aware than any member of a co-operative society is entitled to apply for both a loan and a grant. Therefore, I do not see that there is any necessity to go beyond loans to co-operative societies which are serving various members of the Co-operative Association.
Reference was also made to piers and harbours which need rehabilitation. Here again, we give substantial assistance for improvements to piers and harbours in various parts of the country. My hon. Friend also referred to lobsters, and in that connection mentioned transport. He thought that research was the answer, and at this late hour I am willing to accept that what he thinks is the right thing. I can also say that the Government are rendering assistance in another direction, in that they are helping with storage

ponds, so that lobsters can be preserved there for sale in the winter, when they are not too plentiful. To that extent, I think we are doing more than he realised. He also said that this is an improvement on the last Bill. I should have thought he would have known that every Bill we introduce is slightly better, whatever Government introduces it.
The hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant) welcomed Clause 2 and the possibility of licensing the number of ships fishing in the North Sea. She was very anxious for the application of the over-fishing convention as soon as possible, and so are we. She then entered into a realm which is completely outside the scope of this Bill, namely, when she referred to foreign landings of fish. I do not think that it would be reasonable on my part to start discussing the landings of foreign fish on a Bill that has no relation to the import of fish. She said something about the removal of uncertainty and insecurity. If I know anything about fish, which the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) thinks I do not, there is less insecurity and anxiety among fishermen today than there has been for generations in this country. However, we shall take note of what the hon. Lady said; and I readily understand her absence, as she had to catch a train and was kind enough to warn me of that earlier on.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) also regretted that there was no reference in the Bill to transport. This is not a transport Measure, although I recognise that transport is important where fish are concerned. No doubt the Railways Executive will take note of the observations of my hon. Friend, and if they can reasonably provide better transport so that Londoners or those elsewhere can get fresher fish, I hope that they will take steps to do in the future what has not been done under private enterprise in the past. He also made reference to the working conditions of seamen. I am in agreement with him so far as conditions on the boats are concerned, but that, I fear, is also entirely outside the scope of this Measure. The hon. Member also mentioned the question of foreign landings where nations have not ratified the Convention. I can assure him that we shall keep that very much in mind, and we shall not hesitate to take steps that seem to be necessary.
The hon. and learned Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) wanted to know whether there is any prospect of this Convention being finally ratified? I think that there is a very good prospect that the Convention will be ratified by all the signatory nations. He asked whether we had conferred with Spain about the matter. My answer is "No," as Spain does not happen to fish in the North Sea. He also asked whether the French are co-operating. I understand that it is thought that the French will ratify the Convention. He asked me what size of vessel is likely to be allowed to operate under Clause 2 without a licence. The type of vessel we have in mind will be under 40 feet. The hon. and learned Member referred to the question of a means test for inshore fishermen who apply for assistance, either by loan or grant. That question is governed by the 1945 Act, which this Bill does not amend except to provide more funds for that purpose. In saying that, I am also answering the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall).

Mr. D. Marshall: It is not exactly covered by the 1945 Act. I was hoping the Minister would say tonight that the reasonable amount would have to be more reasonable in view of the present purchasing power of the pound.

Mr. Williams: What the hon. Member would regard as reasonable might be contested in some quarters. At any rate, Clause 3 provides more money to help inshore fishermen on the 1945 basis. The hon. and learned Member for St. Ives and the hon. Member for Bodmin also asked about the 75-foot vessel. The answer is that the 70-foot vessel is regarded as a reasonable sub-division between inshore fishermen and trawler owners. If we go to 75 feet, why not to 80, 95 or 100 feet? If we exceed 70 feet, which is regarded by most people as reasonable, we enter into the field of the trawler owner. The inshore fisherman with a boat in excess of 70 feet would become a competitor of the trawler owner. It would be absurd, so long as we are giving assistance to the inshore fisherman, to turn him into a trawler owner by the size of his boat, while the great trawler owner was getting no assistance whatever. At the moment, there is no hope of turning the inshore fishermen into a trawler owner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Colman) asked about the conditions to be laid down for licensing vessels under Clause 2. The answer is that we shall start with the 1938 basis, and the proportion leading up to 85 per cent. of pre-war vessels will be the determining factor, except in the cases of those vessels under 40 feet. My hon. Friend also asked me about quick-freezing. If there are regular supplies to make quick-freezing economic, and those supplies are fresh, I think it may form part of the answer to the problem of our surplus and shortage of fish. But it must be understood that unless fish is really fresh it is no use for quick freezing. A quick-freezing factory must have a constant supply if it is to be economic, otherwise fresh fish, quick-frozen, would be at an outsize price once the day of scarcity arrived and releases were made from that quick-freezing plant.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) said that this Bill was a good Bill, but did not go quite far enough. That is what we all say when we are in opposition, and if I had been sitting in his place today I should probably have said the same. I am glad that somebody, particularly from the Opposition Benches, realises the modesty of the Government. We are sometimes charged with going too far, and doing too much, but at long last there is a voice, echoed by the hon. Member for Bodmin, to say that this is a very modest Measure. The hon. and gallant Member for Down also referred to civil servants. I do not know anything about the particular case he mentioned, but I am willing to inquire into the details if he will let me have the information.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) referred to the question of research, as did several other Members during the Debate. I can tell him that research has been going on for a considerable time, and that our scientists are perhaps as good as any in the world. Whenever new problems have to be resolved our scientists are always in the front line. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, and others, also referred to nets. My duty is to see that fishermen, like farmers, get the tools necessary for their job, and so far as I can exercise my influence in the councils of the mighty, I shall use it in


the direction of the producer, whether he be fanner or fisherman. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) raised a number of points, with many of which I agree, and also answered one or two Members who spoke earlier. Since his answers were so effective I do not think I need answer those Members myself. The question of rubber boots and nets is constantly in our minds, and when supplies are made available it is my job to see that we get our fair share.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir D. Neven-Spence) made one of his characteristic speeches, to which we all listened with great interest because of his knowledge of the industry. I could not have agreed with him more when he answered the hon. Member for Streatham so effectively, in the absence of the hon. Member for Streatham. Since the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made such an effective answer I do not propose to repeat it at this late hour. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has made a score of speeches on herrings. He has taught me at least a dozen times how to cook a herring properly, but I must confess that even yet I do not know how to cook it, because it has not always been the same story which he has told. Nevertheless, it is all very interesting. He said that this Bill was the coping stone on his hopes and expectations and he thought that the Bill filled the gap in the 1944 Act. I hope with him that the new powers to be given to the Herring Board will be used to the full to develop whatever new processes there are. We are providing both the powers and the funds for the Board.
The hon. Member for Streatham raised two or three points, and I understand in my absence he was as generous and as kindly as he usually is to Ministers of Agriculture. I could not hope to compete with him in offensiveness and since he has done it often and regularly I have no complaints. He was similarly disposed to my predecessor as he is to me and I regard it as characteristic of him since he feels he is the repository of all the fishing knowledge in the universe. One thing I would say to him is in reply to his remarks that this Government has wasted two years. He has been a Member of the Conservative Party, which has been in office for seven of the nine years he has been a Member of this House of Commons, and

yet he has constantly and wholeheartedly supported that Government during that period though the wastage has been something like 20 years in the interval between the two wars.

Sir D. Robertson: I was referring to the omissions of the right hon. Gentleman and this Government between 1946 and 1948. It has nothing to do with the Conservative Government nine years ago or any more years ago, and anyway the war was on for the greater part of that time.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman recognises that it was this Government, in view of the experience gained after the first world war, that initiated this international conference and has used and exercised all its influence to get the convention agreed and to secure ratification at the earliest possible moment. Yet in his observations the hon. Gentleman suggested that we had wasted two years. He went on to say that if the Minister of Agriculture had got any excuses to make, let him make them precisely. I ought to tell the hon. Member that I have no excuses to make at all. I have every reason to be proud of what this Government has done in the short space of time it has been in office.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I cannot let the statement of the right hon. Gentleman go without challenge. He was talking about initiating this conference, but he knows as well as I do that it was initiated in the days of the Coalition Government when most of the Governments concerned were refugee Governments in London.

Mr. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to claim part of the credit, I will readily give it to him, but at least he is answering his hon. Friend who suggested that we have been wasting two years. Perhaps the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is more effective than mine.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen said that this Bill will speed up the procedure in making us approve any scheme to be carried out by the Herring Industry Board. He had a tinge of fear that it might give such power of direction to the Minister that a little dictatorship might arise out of it. I can satisfy the hon. Member I hope by telling him that the change in procedure is designed to


simplify and to speed things up, as he himself suggested. Directions have to be given on such questions as quick freezing, oil extraction, the building of floating factories or the giving of price guarantees, all of which will be very useful to the herring industry. He said that the Ministry of Food had consistently made a mess of this business over the last seven years. If that is so, the Ministry were making a mess of it when he was its Parliamentary Secretary. He claimed that he was happy to be in the position of merely kicking the Government along, and he said that so long as the Government were doing their job because of his kicking, he was very happy. It is a pity that the hon. Member could not have kicked his own Government along 20, 15 or even 10 years ago.
Perhaps the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has gone to catch the same train as his colleagues. If he has, God bless him. He asked a question about engines. Feeling that he might have gone to catch that train—I know that homeward bound is always pleasure bound, so I agree with him in so doing—I think it is right to answer his questions. He said that he hoped that we were not exporting so many engines that the inshore fishermen could not get engines for their boats. He will be glad to know that quite recently 104 new boats have been purchased by inshore fishermen in Scotland with aid provided by the Government while 76 new boats have been provided in England, in addition to replacements. Those figures seem to indicate that there is no shortage of engines for those who apply for assistance from the Government.
The hon. Gentleman who concluded the Debate for the Opposition, I thought rather formally, deserves some sort of reply. He referred to experimental processing plants and that kind of thing. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully seized of the necessity for keeping pace with the latest science and technique in processing plant for fishing. We could not over-estimate the value of the fishing industry in this country. Whether it is in the direction of radar or of other devices, I can assure the hon. Member that we shall be as well forward in this country as any other nation.
He referred to the price of coal for export as an imposition, from which I fear the hon. Gentleman does not know the story very well, or he would not have raised that matter. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps aware that before the war, when coal was exported at a very cheap price, the trawler owners of this country were always anxious to remain in the category of exporters of coal. It was only when the scene was changed, that is to say when there was a scarcity of coal and the export price became higher than the internal price, that the trawler owners say there was a difference.
The National, Coal Board, after represensations made to them found, perhaps, that they had made a mistake. They quite readily, after conversations and discussions, rectified the mistake. Because the Coal Board did what had always been done before the war, namely, kept trawler owners in the export category where coal was cheaper than the internally consumed coal, they corrected the matter, I repeat after discussion and conversation. The trawler owners are very happy with their present position.

Mr. D. Marshall: I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to wish to misrepresent anyone. As far as I am aware, if we go back to the time when they took advantage of the cheaper coal prior to the war, it was in order to give this industry, which was having a very bad time, some form of chance. That is quite a different matter.

Mr. Williams: There is no difference at all in the matter. It was just a question whether coal purchased by trawler owners for the high seas was export or not. If I had been a trawler owner at that time I would obviously have wanted to be in the export area, but equally obviously in the post-war period I should want to be in the internal area. Now the thing is straightened out and it is plain. The hon. Member also referred to fishing in England and Wales as compared with Scotland. I should never have dared to talk about Grimsby, Hull, Fleetwood or Milford Haven because such ports speak for themselves and do not need advertising.
The hon Member referred to a part of the Bill and asked me to include whitebait and sardines with herrings and pilchards, and so forth. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Bodmin was aware


that sardines are young pilchards and whitebait are young herrings or young sprats and have therefore a very close relationship to their parents.
I do not think I need detain the House any longer. I have answered most of the important questions. I must thank hon. Members on all sides of the House for their contributions to the Debate. It is rare that a Bill is perfect when first advanced—there is always room for slight improvements—but on the principles there has been general agreement. I hope that the progress visualised in this small Bill will, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen said, bring new power, new funds and new opportunities, and that the Bill will ultimately help the fishing industry to a reasonable prosperity and the consumers of fish to reasonably permanent supplies.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session for regulating the mesh of fishing nets, for licensing fishing in the North Sea, for giving financial assistance or further financial assistance to inshore fishermen and persons desiring to engage in the inshore fishing industry, to co-operative societies and organisations of fishermen and to the Herring Industry Board, for amending the Herring Industry Acts, 1935 to 1944, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise,—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of additional sums, not exceeding five hundred thousand pounds in the aggregate, by way of grant under Section one of the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945, and of additional sums, not exceeding one million pounds in the aggregate, by way of loan under the said Section;
(ii) of loans, not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred thousand pounds, to co-operative societies and organisations formed for the purpose of co-operative schemes for fishermen to meet capital expenditure incurred or to be incurred in connection with the initial operation or the development of those schemes;

(iii) of sums, not exceeding in the aggregate one million five hundred thousand pounds, in respect of expenses incurred by the Herring Industry Board;
(iv) of salaries and allowances to members of the Herring Industry Board;
(v) of any increase in the sums payable under Section four of the Herring Industry Act, 1944, for making advances to the Herring Industry Board, being an increase resulting from the removal of the limit on the sums to be advanced under the said Section for the making of loans in connection with export and for the undertaking of operations involving the outlay of working capital and from the extension of the period during which advances may be made under the said Section;
(vi) of administrative expenses incurred under the said Act of the present Session by any Minister in the execution of that Act;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer in accordance with the said Act of the present Session of sums received by way of interest on, or in payment of the principal of, any loan made to any co-operative society or organisation of fishermen."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions on this Motion. It will be noted that the first three sub-paragraphs in the aggregate represent something like well over £3 million of the taxpayers' money, but the first question I have relates to sub-paragraph (v). What, approximately, is the amount of money which we shall have to find as taxpayers under that sub-paragraph, and has he as yet secured from the Treasury an assurance that he will be given an adequate sum for the purpose? On sub-paragraph (vi) I should like to know what he expects to be the increase not only in administrative costs but in the number of people employed. If we can have some sort of estimates on these two matters. I should be glad, because I welcome the whole of this Resolution and its purpose. I am not, as very often, asking a question for the purpose of criticising the Government, but because I wish to be quite sure they have adequate help in this matter.

Mr. T. Williams: The estimate on (v) is about £1,250,000. It is difficult to give a reasonable estimate of the administrative expenses, but we think the figure may be somewhere in the region of £75,000.

Mr. C. Williams: I did ask how many people.

Mr. T. Williams: I am afraid I could not tell the hon. Member that.

Mr. C. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer and would just say this in criticism: once again we are asked to expand the number of officials. Everyone knows there are thousands of officials employed by the Government who can quite easily be put into these jobs.

Mr. T. Williams: If I may say so, with respect, the hon. Member is wrong. This is not likely to employ any more officials at all.

Mr. C. Williams: Again I thank the right hon. Gentleman. It is astonishing how knowledge has suddenly descended on him. A moment ago he knew nothing about it. How quickly the Government learns when asked to face the point, but it is a pity he presents these estimates without making sure of the facts.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

BASKET AND WILLOW TRADES

10.34 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 8th March, 1948, entitled the Control of Willow Rods and Willow Sticks Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 461), a copy of which was presented on 9th March, be annulled.
This order imposes a system of controlled marketing and maximum prices on willow rods and sticks. The House will know that these willows are mainly used for the manufacture of baskets, and it is not possible to see the effect of the order unless one considers the industry as a whole, from the growing of the willows right to the making of the baskets. If the effect of the order were to bring stability into this ancient industry—I believe it goes back 3,000 years—then I do not think anyone would have any quarrel with it. But I think I can show the House that nothing of the kind is going to take place. On the contrary, the only certain effect of this order is to give to a handful of merchants the power to form a ring. If they use that power, they will have all the growers of willows dancing to their tune.
I must give the House a brief description of this industry, which is of a peculiar structure and carried on by persons who perform distinct functions. There are, first of all, the general run of the growers of willows, many of whom are ordinary farmers, who once a year sell off their crops of willows in the green or unpeeled state. Then there are the men called grower-managers. They, I believe, number several hundreds, and they are the backbone of this industry. They grow a quantity of willows, but they also buy acreages of willows at auction, or by private treaty, cut them, and prepare them for sale to merchants and manufacturers. I would call the attention of the House to these grower-managers, because they are the people who are up against this order. Then there are two classes of merchant in the industry. There are those called merchant-growers, who grow a considerable quantity of willows, but also buy and sell willows; and then there are the merchants pure and simple.
Section 2 (1) of the order provides that:
No person shall acquire any controlled goods from a grower except under the authority of a licence.
The question arises who is going to get a licence from the Board of Trade which will enable him to be one of the exclusive buyers of willows in the future? We do not know from the order, but we have it on the authority of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), who is such a prominent figure in this industry, who said, speaking in Somerset, that the intention of the Board of Trade was to grant these licences only to the merchant-growers and the merchants. I do not know whether the Minister is going to confirm that statement; but that is the suspicion in Somerset. If that is actually the case, there will be only a small number of licensed dealers in willows, possibly not more than 15. It is understandable, therefore, that all those men who from time immemorial have been dealing in this product, should be suspicious that so small a ring of licensed dealers might fix the price and hold them to ransom. In future they will have to go to one of these licensed merchants to get any willows for preparation for the market.
What would be the defence for imposing such a very much tighter marketing control than ever was necessary during


the war? I think the defence must be—again taking my line from the speeches of the hon. Member for Taunton, made in the country—that there have been black market transactions in willows which it would be in the public interest to stop by this method of tightly controlling the market. I expect the Minister will say that as the maximum prices in the schedule of this order are considerably higher than the old maximum prices, the growers ought to be content to submit to control in return for this generosity in raising the maximum prices. I think that must be the essence of the argument. Of course, the first thing to inquire is whether the maximum prices in the order are going to operate, or are they going to be only paper prices. If they are only to be paper prices, what is the excuse for putting the trade into this straitjacket? What really determines the prices? What determines them in default of a guarantee of the share of the British market is the volume of imports. At present it is much more a matter of basket imports than of willows. Nothing in this order is going to make these maximum prices operate if a stream of imported goods come in.
It would be interesting to look for a few moments at imports. As the House well knows, the import of willows and baskets during the war became exceedingly expensive because they could not be obtained from European countries, and had to be got at high prices from the Argentine and other South American countries. The prices rose sharply, and everyone made money. I must pay a tribute—a most sincere tribute—to that successful capitalist, the hon. Member for Taunton, who welded together both sides of the industry during the war into a well-knit and profitable undertaking. Those of us who worked in the Ministry of Production knew well that that was so.
At the end of the war it was clear that the industry expected a recession such as there was after the first world war, and a year ago we find the hon. Gentleman asking the Minister of Agriculture to put willows in the First Schedule of the Agriculture Act. The Minister of Agriculture, of course, did not put them in the First Schedule, and the point will not be lost on any of my hon. Friends who are interested in the domestic market of agricultural products when imports begin to

come in. Maximum prices are no good unless they are backed up with a guaranteed share of the British market. Those who support the order are doubtlessly going to tell us about shortage of foreign exchange and the fact that, owing to our difficulty in getting enough money to buy the things we want from hard currency countries, we cannot get as many willows as formerly from the Argentine. That is true at present, but the fact is that the import of baskets has just as much effect as the import of willows. This is a rather pertinent question because the basket trade is very short of orders at the present time. In this connection, I do not mean those domestic baskets, which are subject to purchase tax; I am talking about industrial baskets—butchers' baskets, bakers' baskets, and laundrymen's hampers and so on—which do not attract Purchase Tax. These are becoming difficult to sell at our present prices, and it is public demand that is going to govern the prices over a period for which willows can be sold.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton because he is not only president of the National Willow Growers' Association, but also chairman of the National Basket and Willow Trades Advisory Committee. I congratulate him because there is nothing I like more than successful capitalism. Under his second organisation, quotas are given to all the basket makers. He is going to tell us that there is a shortage of willows, and the maximum prices will operate because in the present period he has had to cut the supply of willows to the basket manufacturers to 75 per cent. of their quota.
That looks like evidence of a shortage. I am going to ask him to assure us that the basket manufacturers have enough orders on hand to absorb that 75 per cent. I have evidence to show that they have not, and that is a cardinal point. Why does the hon. Gentleman want this order? I am going to read to the House a short quotation from his speech at Stoke St. Gregory at the end of last month. There he is reported to have said:
We can no longer tolerate what has been going on in Somerset for the last 18 months—people going to sales and buying at exorbitant prices willows which are never seen again; and the cutting down from 12,000 bundles a quarter to about 2,000 bundles a quarter the willows that went to proper legitimate quota holders.


What are these proper, legitimate quotas? The National Basket and Willow Trades Advisory Committee, grants or withholds quotas. It even prevents an experienced basket-maker from getting a quota and going back into the trade. I read a letter recently from the hon. Gentleman refusing such a quota. There is no statutory authority for the granting of quotas, or for withholding them. I ask him to tell us under what statutory authority he grants or withholds such quotas? He talks of legitimate quotas, but there are no such things. What has really been happening is that the willow growers have grown tired of selling willows through this organisation and have begun dealing with the basket manufacturers direct. That is why the number of bundles has dropped from 12,000 to 2,000. Now the hon. Gentleman goes to the Board of Trade to get this order so that all willows will have to pass through his organisation under statutory authority.
I must now put to the Minister who is going to reply questions which will clear this up. Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to tell us when this order was first published, to whom did the Board of Trade intend to give the exclusive licences to buy and sell willows? And I ask him, whatever his original intention might have been, to tell us to whom he intends to give them now. To the growers' managers? If not, then he is not going to dispel the suspicion, and it is more than a suspicion, that a dozen or 15 merchants will get the licences, and under an efficient control they will be able to hold the whole of the growing trade to ransom. Who did the Parliamentary Secretary believe was going to benefit by this order? Who are the parties to the industry? There is the public who buys the baskets. What good will it do the public? The public are on strike against the high prices, and are hoping that the small imports from Holland may be increased. Is the Minister prepared to tell us the policy of the Board of Trade is to shut out the imports of baskets from soft currency areas? There is nothing relevant in this order for the buyers of baskets, and I hope the Board of Trade are not going to shut out baskets from all quarters.
What about the willow growers and the basket makers? Are they going to benefit under this order? The extraordinary

thing is that we have no means of telling. All that we know is that the power to monopolise prices is put into the hands of a few men and we also know that these people have interests both in willow growing and in basket making. How can we tell whether they are going to use the powers in this order to keep up the prices for willow growing, or keep them down for basket making? The House ought not to give a statutory power to a few men who can thereafter exercise it as it suits the interests of their trade.
I would remind hon. Members that last week we gave on all sides of the House a sincere welcome to the Monopolies Bill. What was the purpose of this Bill? It was to detect and defeat restrictive practices and we all join in hoping that it will be a success. Now we are discussing an order which creates restrictive practices in an industry stretching from willow growing to basket making, and I can only suggest that if the House will not throw this order out—which we ought to do if we were sincere in our reception of the Monopoly Bill—then we will be accused of gross insincerity. Either we support the Monopolies Bill and then throw this out, or we were not sincere in our support of the Bill. Is there anyone who is certainly going to benefit from this order except those who get the licences? As the order does not tell us who are going to get the licences and what are they going to do with them, it should be annulled.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I beg to second the Motion.
I feel that I should first confess to the House that I have some interest in this matter. I am not, apparently, like an hon. Member or hon. Members round Taunton way, one of the great monopolistic buyers or sellers. I am just a humble person like my predecessors who have been accustomed from time to time to sell just a few bundles of willows grown on small patches of ground. I am one of a good many people in the West Country who have devoted suitable patches of ground to this purpose from time immemorial, and who sell willows, not so much for basket making as for making crab and lobster pots for the


fishermen. As far as I can understand it, as I look at the first part of this order, it says:
No person shall acquire any controlled goods from a grower except under the authority of a licence issue. …
No grower shall supply any controlled goods otherwise than to a person who is authorised to acquire controlled goods by a licence. …
In the first place, is this going to be enforced on people scattered over Cornwall or the West Country away from the Taunton area, who have these willows? Must we really have a licence? Is the farmer with a corner in which there are a few willows required to have a licence when a fisherman comes along and asks him for a few bundles? Have both parties to get a licence? That is how I read this order. If I require a licence to supply each one of the persons who comes along and asks me for a few bundles of willows it is just farcical. It is not worth the work of entering into the details of obtaining a licence for that purpose.
My hon. Friend who moved the Prayer about this order referred to an ancient trade going back thousands of years. There are indeed all round the coasts of Britain many places where willows are grown—very often almost accidentally grown—and where they are sold for various purposes, including sometimes the use of basket-makers. Although something may be necessary in the form of an order, the House surely cannot accept anything so absurd as a proposal to make every single fisherman, whenever he gets a bundle of willows or goes back to ask for another bundle, write all the information on a licence form, on both sides. Are the Department going to make hundreds, even thousands of fishermen fill in forms for fresh licences? Are they also going to have the completely ridiculous position as revealed in the definition of "barter" at the top of page 3 of the order? Suppose a fisherman goes to a farmer and says, "I am short of cash; I will give you half a dozen mackerel if you let me have a bundle of willows?" Are they going to prosecute him? Are they going to send them both to gaol for asking that sort of thing?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has frequently been down

in my part of the country. I do not know whether other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench have been down to Torquay lately or whether they know that part of the country at all well. But they should know that we are subject in the country areas to persecutions of this kind, which make life almost intolerable and which are preventing the growing of all sorts of things which would help us along. It has given me great pleasure to second the Motion, not from the big growers' or the big consumers' point of view, but because I think this matter should be put before the House, especially as this order bears on the ordinary lives of the people who have not the means or the time to waste in filling up forms, which this order apparently commands them to do.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Collins: It is scarcely necessary for me to declare my interest in this matter because it has been done very kindly by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), but I do think I ought to say in confirmation that I am President of the National Willow Growers' Association and Chairman of the National Basket and Willow Trades Advisory Committee. Might I say that the latter body comprises representatives of the basket manufacturers, of the blind workshops, of the willow growers, of the willow merchants and of the Worshipful Company of Basket-makers, and all these organisations completely approve the order we are now discussing, just as they approved the orders which preceded it during the war years. I want to point out that the present order embodies precisely all the provisions of the previous orders, with the main addition that at the present time under this order it is necessary for the grower to sell and sell only to the merchant.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for mentioning one or two points arising out of this order. Although we on this side of the House are accustomed to hon. Members opposite moving annulment Prayers without any justification, having heard the hon. Member's speech, I now realise that the evidence upon which he has based his conclusions is even more fantastic than is usually the case. He drew a picture of a ring of merchants grinding the lives out of small and worthy growers. He referred to a


speech of mine, when I spoke to the Willow Growers' Association about this order. About 95 per cent. of the willow growers of Somerset are members of the Association, and most were present when I spoke. They included a number of the small managers to whom reference has been made. They unanimously approved and supported this order, but they made the point that means should be devised whereby small managers could be enabled to buy crops of willows on giving an undertaking to sell to merchants at a controlled price. There is no reason why, under this order, such an arrangement should not be made, and all the people concerned treated with complete justice.
It was rightly said that there could be no justification for an order of this kind, if it could be shown that, owing to lack of demand or for some other reason, maximum prices were unlikely to be realised. The hon. Member mentioned the unemployment caused by imports, and said that the basket industry was short of orders. But for a very small section of the trade, for reasons entirely unconnected with basket or willow imports, the basket trade is still very busy indeed and very full of orders. His informers must be very inefficient basket makers if they cannot get orders.
I should like to give some figures on this matter of imports. The total imports in the first quarter of this year, from January to March, amounted to the negligible amount of £6,500, as compared with an approximate home output of over £3 million in a year. And so, the volume of imports is less than i per cent, of the total home production. That is hardly likely seriously to affect employment in this country. I inquired further into this matter to see how these imports were going to affect employment, because if there is no demand for our baskets, one would assume that our basket makers would be unemployed. To 15th March, throughout the length and breadth of the country, there were precisely 35 basket makers unemployed out of a total of more than 7,000. In other words, less than one half of 1 per cent. of the basket makers in the country are unemployed, compared with something like 20 per cent. when the Conservative Party were in power and practically ruined the basket industry. One half of 1 per cent. is less than the

average of unemployment throughout the country. I think that that is a complete answer to the ridiculous statements, both in regard to the volume of imports and to the basket industry being short of orders, and there being unemployment.
The hon. Member made some reference to domestic baskets. It is very likely that, owing to the incidence of the Purchase Tax, there will be some unemployment, particularly among blind workers. If he has observed the Order Paper he will see an Amendment down in my name, and I hope to get some success in the matter which will relieve the anxiety of such unemployment. The hon. Member asked, "Who will benefit from this order?" I will tell him. There are more than 7,000 basket makers in this industry, and more than 4,000 of that number are blind or disabled. It is for these workers that we are insisting, in a time of shortage far more acute that it was during the war, on a continuance of controlled distribution. Our normal consumption of willows is 5,000 tons a year. During the war 3,000 tons of that came from the Argentine, which was the only source of foreign supply, and 2,000 tons was processed from the home crop. In December, 1947, we were informed by the Board of Trade that for currency reasons imports from the Argentine would have to be curtailed to 700 tons. We have secured 500 tons from Europe, and we hope to reproduce this year 1,500 tons of home processed willows. That will be in all 2,700 tons against a normal requirement of 5,000 tons.
Yet the hon. Member suggests, first, that we shall have enough; and secondly, that the maximum prices are ineffective because the demand will not be there. I can give further evidence on this point. On Monday I caused inquiries to be made in Somerset about the number of unfulfilled orders, and I find that there were no fewer than 23,000 bundles ordered, but not delivered. The hon. Member quoted me as saying that owing to the black market, quotas had fallen from 12,000 to 2,000 bundles a month—precisely because of the black market which this order is designed to stop, and will stop. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) spoke about his fishermen, some of whom are friends of mine, too, who had relied during the war on obtaining their willows through the advisory


committee. His farmer friends who want to dispose of their willows will, under the terms of this order, have no trouble in disposing of them if they inform my committee.

Mr. C. Williams: Mr. C. Williams rose—

Mr. Collins: If the hon. Member will permit me I shall be delighted to explain the reason for this particular control. In 1942 there was a requirement of airborne wicker panniers needed to supply forward troops in the field. It was so large that it absorbed the entire output of all the basket makers in the country. It was necessary to secure equitable distribution of willows, and it was suggested that a rigid control on the lines of the Timber Control should be instituted, but a suggestion was made that the committee of which I am chairman, and which is comprised of all the interests in the trade, should handle this matter. We were permitted to become, therefore, the sole importers and distributors of foreign willows. We also entered into a gentleman's agreement.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Ha, ha.

Mr. Collins: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) would not understand what that means. We also entered into a gentleman's agreement with the willow growers, whereby, with no control at all, but voluntarily, they agreed to supply only orders which we assured them were required for this most vital purpose. They carried out that agreement to the letter. That was probably the most successful control, although a voluntary agreement, of any raw material. We came to the end of the war, and to the transfer from making war goods to making those for peace-time. Willows, as I have explained, were in far too short supply. We had to see that they went first for essential requirements; secondly, for the important requirement of providing work for blind and disabled workers who would have otherwise become unemployed or under-employed; and, third, that any residue should be fairly shared amongst anyone else in the industry. We also thought we had an obligation to the ex-Service men who wanted to return to the industry after the war. We had the same numbers in the industry and a diminished supply of raw material. We

wanted to permit men coming back from the war to get into the trade. They have to get materials. It was decided that those already in the industry must make sacrifices in order to ensure that those men had a chance to return. They have all been given quotas. A thousand ex-Service men have returned to the industry. The number of basket businesses throughout the country has increased from 700 to 1,050, and 600 or 700 of these are very small businesses.
The hon. Member asked me, Who will benefit by this order? The people who will benefit by it are those who are in the industry, the small men who will not get their willow in any other way, the blind and disabled workers who rely completely on the supplies we send them. If any other proof were wanted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite of the necessity for the order, I would mention that I have had telegrams from the National Association of Workshops for the Blind, which comprises all the workshops for the blind throughout the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. They ask me to oppose the annulment of this order because the order is in the best interests of the blind basket-makers. I have another telegram which reads:
In view of the serious shortage of English grown willows I consider the Control of Willow Rods Order, 1948, should remain in force until such time as supplies become more plentiful.
That was signed by George White, manager of the Basket Department of St. Dunstan's. Here is a telegram from the Willow Growers' Association:
Urge you support Willow Rods Order Removal would mean chaos in the willow industry.
I think that is a sufficient and an effective answer from the basket industry.
My family have been in the basket and willow industries for some 300 years. I have no financial axe to grind in this. I have worked for a good many years now, as the hon. Member said, in building up this industry, and in knitting it together. The willow growers had this experience after 1918. They did not have control then. Prices of their willows increased from 4s. a bundle to 30s. a bundle. They started planting beds after 1918. If the hon. Member for Chippenham, when he goes down to his constituency, will look out of the train


window somewhere near Reading, he will see some of the melancholy monuments of the Tory neglect of the land, which ruined the willow growers and reduced their acreage from 9,000 acres to 2,000 acres. The hon. Member may not like it. I am dealing with the points he raised and I am giving the House the facts which, in view of the misrepresentations to which we have listened, should be given.

Mr. Eccles: I entirely agree with the hon. Member that the industry collapsed after the last war, but why? Because imports were allowed to come in. What agreement has he got from any Government Department to prevent that happening again? He has merely for the moment the fact that Argentine willows are not allowed in, and he pretends to the trade that this order is going to give stability. Nothing of the kind.

Mr. Collins: I agree that stability for the industry depends on the implementation of the Agriculture Act in so far as it applies to willows.

Mr. Eccles: It is not on the schedule.

Mr. Collins: It is not on the schedule, and other things like wool which hon. Members would like to see on the schedule are not there. I have urged willow growers over the last five years not to start planting beds immediately. It is a very expensive crop to grow, costing at least £100 an acre, and needs a big capital expenditure. But now I am sure that the assured future which they require is theirs, particularly under the measures which this Government have introduced.
The hon. Member knows what happened round about 1921. When the last war began, the willow growers themselves asked for controlled prices and the successive orders that have been passed since then have all been with controlled prices related to costs. That is at their own request. They have wanted the industry like this. The picture has been painted of old firms in the basket trade who cannot get a quota. There is not a single firm in the basket industry which was in the industry in 1944 or, if not in, then concerned with the Services; there is not anyone trained in a Government establishment, or anyone who wants

willows for occupational therapy, who cannot get a supply. The whole point is that this structure depends on the continuance of the system that has been built up. Its continuance depends on an order of this kind, which can only be replaced by a very complicated rigid control, employing more civil servants—a matter which hon. Members opposite often deplore—while this control has been worked without any expenditure of public money or employment of extra officials.

Mr. Bracken: And by people financially interested in it.

Mr. Collins: The right hon. Member must think what he likes about that, but I can assure the House his thoughts will not be shared by anybody in the willow growing and basket industries. The hon. Member who moved the Motion is fully aware that this is true. I have given the House the facts. I say they are the complete answer to what has been said by the hon. Member for Chippenham. If hon. Members want to have blind and disabled workers unemployed or under-employed, if they want to drive out of business 400 to 500 ex-Service men who have come back to the industry and have been supplied with a quota and who depend entirely for their supplies on the continuance of the methods we have adopted, then they will vote against this Order. I hope that in view of the facts I have given—and they are the facts—the hon. Member will not press the Motion to a Division, but will withdraw it.

11.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): May I begin by expressing my very great pleasure at seeing such an unusually large representation of the Opposition on an occasion of this kind. I am rather intrigued as to the reason for it. Obviously, this order that we have made at the Board of Trade is regarded as being a matter of some importance. The speech that has been made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) obviously has made it impossible for me to add very much to the case for this order. He has had a wide and intimate knowledge of the subject over a period of years, and he gave very great service during the years when his organising ability was responsible for clearing away many of the bottlenecks in the basket-making industry. That


makes it all the more difficult for me to listen to interjections which suggest that my hon. Friend has interests other than those he should have in this matter. I am convinced that he is concerned only to do what he can for the industry and the country, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) shares that view.
The hon. Member for Chippenham suggested that I would plead in defence of this order that currency difficulties prevent the importation of the quantity of willows which otherwise we might import. That is true. In the years before the war, we had to supplement home production by importation from the Continent of Europe and from the Argentine. For obvious reasons, importation from the Continent was stopped during the war. It has been resumed to some extent, but only to a small extent compared with our imports before the war. For obvious currency reasons, we are not importing at present from the Argentine, and we shall have to be very careful about currency in future.
The hon. Member for Chippenham in an interjection, referred to this order not guaranteeing stability to the willow growers of this country, and recalled what happened after the first world war. He suggested that one of the reasons why, after the first world war, the willow-growing industry of this country lagged and lost its position was importation. He said that there was nothing in this order which would guarantee stability by preventing great imports of willow for basket-making in the future. Of course, there is nothing in this order to prevent the importation of willows for basket-making in the future. This order is designed to deal with the situation as it is now, and if at some future time it becomes necessary to take some other step, that can be taken. It seems to me irrelevant to bring into the question the importation of these things, when it is evident that the order is designed to deal with the present situation.
I pass now to the reasons why we have introduced this instrument, although I shall be more or less covering the ground already covered by the hon. Member for Taunton, who spoke, not as the Minister responsible for a Department, but as an individual who has had a great interest

in this industry for a considerable time. We are not going to be deterred from asking a man who is prominent in a particular industry to carry out certain functions on behalf of an industry because he happens to be a Labour Party back-bencher.
Under the order there has been price control of willows since 1941, but until this present instrument, apart from the period mentioned by my hon. Friend, namely, the years 1943 to 1945, there has been no control of distribution. Since 1945, the association about which we have heard so much this evening—the National Basket and Willow Trades Advisory Committee, which represents all sections of the industry—has operated a voluntary allocation scheme. Why the hon. Member for Chippenham should single out this particular trade association for attack is something which I do not know. I am in touch with many trade associations whose practices are similar to those of this organisation, but we hear nothing of them. To return to my point, the willow growers and the importers were asked to make available for their quota scheme all their production and their imports. [Interruption.] It would be very nice if I could continue my speech without a sort of running commentary going on among right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

Captain Crookshank: Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough) rose—

Mr. Belcher: I am merely asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to have some manners so that I may concentrate on my remarks without being subject to the interruptions of a loud voice, designed to put me off my stroke.

Captain Crookshank: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark. I was asking my right hon. Friend a question; I was not interrupting the hon. Gentleman. If there seemed to be an interruption, it is because the loudspeakers caused my voice to come across so loudly.

Mr. Belcher: I accept that it was due to the loudspeakers, but it did seem that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was carrying on a conversation in loud tones. To continue, I will refer to the remarks about the black market. This reached such a stage that the reliable and reputable users of willows were finding it impossible to carry on. Because of the


leakage into the black market, the unscrupulous basket-maker bought up all the willows he could lay his hands on, despite the statutorily controlled prices, and the decent man, the fellow prepared to play the game with the voluntary advisory committee, got far less than his fair share. We prosecuted some people, but by the time that the prosecution had taken place, most of the harm was done.
We came to the conclusion that this was a state of affairs which could not continue, and this instrument was made. It lays down maximum prices, which have since been advanced to allow for increased costs, and it compels growers to sell growing and cut willows only to licensed merchants. This appears to be one of the principal reasons for objection to this instrument, but licences have been granted to all established merchants, and I believe there are more licensed at the present moment than the number who were receiving supplies under the old condition of affairs. In fact, instead of this order being more monopolistic than anything preceding it, it is less monopolistic.
A most important feature of the provision is that growers can sell only to licensed merchants; that means that the grower-to-user sales—sales of a direct nature—are cut out. That cuts off immediately this black market which grew up, and which was a very serious matter for the kind of people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton when he read out a telegram. The matter must have been one of urgency because one would not have telegrams from organisations such as St. Dunstan's unless they believed that the making of this order was designed to do justice to some of the most deserving people in this country. By cutting out the direct grower-to-user sales, this order has the effect of cutting that black market, and willows are now channelled to the user through the hands of reputable merchants who are cooperating with the advisory committee.

Mr. York: How many reputable merchants are there?

Mr. Belcher: I think the figure is 21.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: How many?

Mr. Belcher: I said I thought the figure was 21.

Mr. Bracken: My goodness.

Mr. Belcher: Why "My goodness"? I am not responsible for deciding how many merchants there will be in this particular industry. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, I will later on introduce another statutory instrument which increases the number to 25, or decreases it to 15.

Mr. Bracken: I was surprised at the small number, and thought that a lot passes through their palms.

Mr. Belcher: At the end of this Debate I will think out that profound remark and endeavour to discover what it means, but at present I see no point in it. I am satisfied that the allocation scheme which is now operating is as reasonable as can be devised. In the present rather complicated circumstances, the scheme is working well.

Mr. C. Williams: Mr. C. Williams rose—

Mr. Belcher: I am afraid I cannot give way. I have given way quite a lot and I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point as I go along. If I do not, perhaps he will address a question to me when I have finished and I will do my best to satisfy him. Hon. Members opposite should not object that the Government, as well as providing the basis for the allocation of willows, have taken over a quota scheme and converted it into some form of statutory arrangement. Hon. Members opposite are always telling us that we have far too many civil servants, and too much Government control of this, that and the other; I should have thought they would have welcomed a scheme to enable us to use the services of a trade organisation which is prepared to co-operate with the Government and work out a satisfactory scheme for all concerned—growers, merchants and users. We did not want to interfere with an arrangement which in the past, as I am certain the hon. Member for Chippenham will agree, has worked efficiently and satisfactorily. Without these arrangements it is difficult to see how we would have got along in the years 1943–1945.
We consider that this instrument is supplementing the earlier price control with a provision that sales must be through the licensed merchants, and that this will be more readily enforceable than


the old order. I may say that merchants' licences are being granted to all firms whose business reached a certain level in the basic period. This brings into the scheme all established merchants.

Mr. Bracken: What is the basic year?

Mr. Belcher: 1946. This leads me to the last of the questions which is legitimately asked about an order of this kind. Will the new control achieve proper distribution? It has not been operating long enough to enable us to form a final verdict, but we believe that it may be expected to prove successful. The purpose of licensing the sales from the growers through the hands of the merchants is to ensure fair distribution. Whether we are going to achieve fair distribution depends not only on the effectiveness of this new scheme but also on the reasonableness of the scheme run by the advisory committee. We are satisfied that the basic principles are reasonable and that the way in which they are administered is eminently satisfactory. We are grateful for the work done voluntarily by the leading people in the trade. Not only are the established basket makers given a quota relating to the volume of their previous activities, but there is as much provision for new entrants as the supply position will allow. It must not be thought that this scheme means a "closed shop" for established makers, with entrance blocked. I should not agree with it if it meant that. There is reasonable provision for the new entrant.
I want to underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton that these present arrangements were worked out in the closest co-operation with the National Basket and Willow Trades Advisory Committee, which represents up to 95 per cent. of the people engaged in all sections of the trade. Hon. Members in all parts of the House may be quite assured, first, that the arrangements which have been made depend for their success on this instrument—the opposition to which I hope will be withdrawn, in view of the statements tonight—and secondly, that all basket manufacturers will get their fair share of the still very limited supplies of willow available. This instrument will not in fact result in maldistribution. We had maldistribution. The trade association did its best to combat it. We came to the conclusion that

the only way to defeat maldistribution was to introduce this instrument, which is designed to do away with it.

Mr. C. Williams: The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question. Has every fisherman around Great Britain who buys a bundle of willows from a local willow grower got to have a licence, and is the person who has a few willows growing, and may sell five or 50 bundles a year, also got to have a licence and give notice of every sale? If so, that will mean thousands of licences.

Mr. Belcher: The fisherman does not require a licence; he has to buy from a licensed merchant. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but under this instrument the man will get his willows, whereas in the past, without this order, he might very well not have got them. It is the case that that state of affairs exists, and it is no laughing matter that there was a black market and very often the fisherman and the small man could not get his baskets. As to the second point of the hon. Member for Torquay, the man in that case does not need to have a licence.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I meant to rise in the most kindly spirit, but after what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I feel horrified at the effect of this order. From what he said, the fisherman needing to buy some willow rods to make lobster pots cannot go to the owner of a small plot, but has to write a letter to an authorised merchant who may perhaps obtain them from a grower only 100 yards from the boat. The merchant then has to buy the willows, hand them over to the fisherman, who is then permitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to make a lobster pot in which a lobster may be caught that may be consumed by the Parliamentary Secretary or the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins). That is really legislation by regulation gone mad. I should have thought the Parliamentary Secretary could have got out of the toils of the hon. Member for Taunton more easily than that.
I was surprised at the way the Parliamentary Secretary contradicted his hon. Friend who said that without this order there would be grave unemployment, and that ex-Service men and blind men would not be able to get supplies and would lose


their savings. That is a dramatic and terrible picture. No one wants to bring about that sort of situation. The Parliamentary Secretary comes before us and demands that the whole of this extraordinary machinery shall be built up, but the hon. Member for Taunton has thrown a cloud over the whole position. The economics of the whole position depend on the amount of willows that are imported. The Parliamentary Secretary admits that, and so he has contradicted the hon. Member for Taunton, whose argument was based entirely on false claims in regard to the value of the order. The whole of that argument now falls to the ground.

Mr. Belcher: I think I have never heard a better example of a series of non sequiturs than the hon. Member's speech. I did not contradict my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) in any way. My hon. Friend pointed out that there was a shortage in this country at the present time. He gave figures of people unemployed in the industry and also figures of the unfulfilled demands for its products. So far from contradicting my hon. Friend, I entirely agree with him. I agree with him that one of the reasons for the shortage was the failure to import; but this order does not have to deal with a problematical situation in years to come, when imports might or might not be resumed. It deals with the situation now. There is not the slightest contradiction between what I said and what the hon. Member for Taunton said.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can only say that the Parliamentary Secretary is confirming what he said before; that is never very difficult for members of the Socialist Government. The Parliamentary Secretary is creating record after record by so confirming his considered view of the statements put forward by the hon. Member for Taunton. There are one or two other points which make me wonder about the authority for this order and whether a monopoly or "closed shop" has been created, and also whether this will restrict ordinary marketing operations. We were not told very much about the issuing of quotas to the different kinds of manufacturers. I should have thought there was no other description of the sort of structure set up under this order. Which

gives legal form and legal rights to the structure already existing and legalises certain practices which have been carried out, possibly in conformity with the law, than to say that it is a monopoly. I can find no better example of what is really a monopoly than the description of the rights and duties and powers and everything else set out in this order.

Mr. Collins: Mr. Collins rose—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think I am being unfair to the hon. Member for Taunton in any way. He has been issuing these quotas of willows to different kinds of manufacturers. He was asked under what right he did this. I believe there is no statutory right. He said it was an entirely voluntary arrangement. It is now proposed that, since what he is doing he is doing for the best, he should be given the sanction of the House. I do not see why this House should create what is the nearest thing to a monopoly one can possibly imagine; I can see no justification for it, and however much the hon. Member for Taunton may get away from it, I am saying that monopolistic powers are being given here.

Mr. Collins: If the hon. Member had been in the House at the time, he would have heard me say that at the end of the war there were 700 firms of basket manufacturers in receipt of a quota of willows, based on their 1944 consumption, which was a peak year. Since that time, 350 additional businesses have been formed, consisting of ex-Service men, all of whom have enjoyed a quota. If this is a monopoly, it is a monopoly which embraces all those who were in the basket industry during the war, and all those ex-Service men who have desired to come into the industry since. The only reason anyone else is excluded is because the supply of willows is shorter than during the war. We have, therefore, to share them out between those in the industry and the newcomers. If we do not continue to do that, people will not get the willows.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We again have the hon. Member condoning what he said, and again he has completely missed the point. I am not saying that he is controlling the number of manufacturers. I am saying that he has taken powers to control the amount of willows issued to the different


manufacturers. The monopoly exists, not in regard to the manufacturers, but in merchanting the products. That is where the monopoly bottleneck exists, and that monopoly bottleneck is being given a statutory right under this order. I do not think the hon. Member can get away from that. He and his organisation are given power, either to allow new entrants into the business, or to forbid it by refusing to grant a quota. Is that or is that not the case?

Mr. Collins: I have explained the position to the hon. Member. We have not enough willows to give to people who are not in the industry, unless they are ex-Service men or disabled persons. It is not a question of monopoly, but of shortage of willows.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is still a monopoly over shortage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the case. The hon. Member has evaded my question completely. Has he or his organisation the right, under this order, to refuse to issue willows to manufacturers or new entrants? I want an answer to that question. The obvious answer is that they have that right, and that that right is a monopoly right. The failure to provide a straight answer to a straight question speaks for itself. I did have a vague suspicion about this order before, but I certainly have a serious suspicion now, and it is no use the Parliamentary Secretary diverting the matter by arguments about what happened in 1921 and 1918. The position today is that this House is being asked to give monopoly rights to a body over which it has no control whatever, whose activities we cannot watch. I only hope that those ex-Service men who sent those telegrams will be sending the same sort of telegrams congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary in a few months' time.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not think that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) and the Parliamentary Secretary have appreciated the fundamental objection we have to this order. We believe that it comes singularly ill from a Government, and especially from the same Department of that Government, on Thursday of this week to request us to approve an order which we consider

runs directly contrary to the principles to which both sides of the House agreed only a week ago, when they gave an unopposed Second Reading to the Monopolies Bill. That is really the gravamen of our charge. I do not know whether the two hon. Members opposite will believe me when I tell them, quite sincerely, that it was almost impossible for us on these benches to credit our ears while we were listening to them. The whole tenor of their speeches was a justification of monopoly. Every single classical argument put forward by individual rings in favour of a monopoly was reproduced in the speech of the hon. Member for Taunton as justification for this. He said "The organisations want it." Is not that exactly what manufacturers in a ring say? Of course. They say "It is a first-class thing because all the interests want it."
I do not want to be offensive, and hope hon. Members will not regard it as offensive if I say this. Suppose an hon. Member on this side of the House said, "My family has been connected with an industry for 300 years, and therefore I think it is a justification for authorising me to form a ring." What would hon. Members opposite say? Hon. Members opposite do not appreciate what they have been saying here in the course of the last hour. The purpose of moving this Prayer is to show the country—I do not want to use too strong a word—I was almost going to say the hypocrisy of hon. Members when they are capable, in one week, of bringing in the Monopolies Bill and producing this order. I do not know whether hon. Members ever read articles by some of their ex-leaders. If they do, I recommend to them one in today's "Daily Herald" by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). Dealing with this very question of monopolies, and explaining what kind of people the Government are and how the country is going to benefit as a result of the passage of the Monopolies Bill into law, and describing some of the evils it is to cure, he says:
The Board of Trade may call on the Commission to act in any case where one-third or more of the total supply is in the hands of a firm or group of two or more persons"—
There is no question here of one-third or more; it is the whole supply under this order—
who have a tacit or express arrangement"—


They do not need to have a tacit arrangement here; they have a statutory express arrangement in this order—
to limit competition in any way.
That is what the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said ought to be swept away. It is exactly what the hon. Member and what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade have been asking us tonight to give statutory sanction to. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me read it. I was astounded when I picked up this paper and read it just before this Debate. [Laughter.] When hon. Members opposite have been on either of the two Front Benches as long as some of us, they will realise that it is sometimes necessary to pick things up very quickly. I will read what it says:
No person shall acquire any goods from a grower except under the authority of a licence.
We have heard that the authority to give the licence is the Board of Trade, on the recommendation of the ring.

Mr. Collins: We have not heard that at all. There is no question of any recommendation from the National Basket and Willow Trades Advisory Committee at all. The system on which we are working, and which has been described as a monopoly, is precisely the system under which the Timber Control or any other control has been working in the interests of equitable distribution.

Mr. Hudson: That was in war. We are now dealing with peace. Nobody on this side is going to suggest that the Timber Control is the sort of body we would wish to see continued in peace. We should all be delighted to see its powers materially altered. What we object to is the proposal by hon. Members opposite to set up some new body now in peace time, similar to what obviously was wanted in war time.

Mr. Belcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is some intrinsic difference between war and peace—[An HON. MEMBER: "Of course there is."] If hon. Gentlemen had listened to the conclusion of my sentence, I do not think they would have made that interjection. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is some intrinsic difference, quite apart from the question of the availability of supplies, which makes it necessary to

have control in war time but not in peace time? I should have thought that what mattered was, not whether we were fighting a war or were at peace, but whether supplies were available. It is an unfortunate fact that in this industry, as in some others, there are less supplies now than there were during the war. I should have thought that that was justification for the continuance of the control.

Mr. Hudson: I am glad the hon. Gentleman now admits this is, in fact, a ring. The only other point I wish to make is this. The Parliamentary Secretary completely failed to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who asked whether a fisherman who fishes around the coast would have to get a licence before he acquired from a farmer, or obtained permission to cut, a few bundles of willows to make or mend lobster pots or other tackle. The Parliamentary Secretary said, "Oh, no. There would be no difficulty about that, because, of course, the fisherman would buy from a licensed merchant."
I wonder if the House would be interested to know what he who wants to buy of the licensed merchant has to do? It is set out in the order. This is what, under the order, an ordinary fisherman, in quite a small way of business, who wants merely to go across the way to cut a few sticks to mend his lobster pot, has to observe and do. The order states:
Any person who sells any controlled goods shall, on or before the delivery thereof, give to the buyer ֵ
and
Any person who buys any controlled goods shall, on or before taking delivery thereof, take from the seller a memorandum …
This is what the memorandum must state—and it is all done by statute:

"(a) the names and addresses of the buyer and the seller,
(b) the date of sale,
(c) the descriptions of the controlled goods sold,
(d) where the controlled goods are sold wholly or partly by the sorted bundle, the number of sorted bundles of each description sold,
(e) where the controlled goods are sold wholly or partly by weight, the weight of each description sold."
One can see a man taking a pair of scales with him to cut a few bundles of sticks


at a neighbour's, in order to fill up the memorandum. But there is more yet to be stated in the memorandum, as
(f) the price of sale, and how it is made up, and
(g) if any charge is made for transport, the place from and to which transport is or has been provided or paid for by the seller.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary really justify asking every man who wants a bundle of rods to do all that? It is fantastic; and he knows it is fantastic. It is what this Government have brought the country to. The Government—and the hon. Member for Taunton—are asking the House tonight to agree to setting up a ring, and to making an ordinary man who wants an ordinary bundle of willow rods with which to mend his lobster pot go through all this. That is what the country has come to.

Question put, and negatived.

CEMENT DUST NUISANCE, THURROCK

Motion made, and Quesion proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Solley: The House has been listening to much talk about monopolies, and I should like to draw attention to one particular kind of monopoly, the cement monopoly. I do not propose to deal with the cement industry at large, but only with certain of its activities which seriously affect thousands of people on both sides of the Thames Estuary, and in particular in my constituency of Thurrock.
In Thurrock we have the Tunnel Portland Cement Company, the Alpha Cement Company, and the Wouldham Cement Company, which is a subsidiary of the British Portland Cement Manufacturers Limited. On the south side of the Thames there are a number of works—the Kent Works, the Swanscombe Works, Bevan's Works and Johnson's Works. During the process of the manufacture of cement large quantities of finely ground solids enter the kilns and consequently the kiln gases are heavily laden with dust particles. Although perhaps not accurately as regards scientific analysis, usually this is referred to as cement dust.
The effect of this cement dust is as follows. About 65 tons of it are deposited per square mile of the area in

question every month of the year. When the wind is blowing from south to north, the cement dust produced by the Kent works find their deposit on Essex soil, and when the wind is blowing from north to south, the cement dust produced by the Thurrock works find their deposit on Kent soil. This figure of 65 tons per square mile per month is three times larger than the average pollution of the atmosphere of ordinary industrial areas.
The effect of the cement dust in the domestic domain is extremely serious. If windows are opened within a mile of these works, furniture inside the rooms become quickly covered with a fine layer of dust. Clothes which are kept on the line become covered. A few weeks ago I had a letter from one of my constituents, a lady who said she could not hang the children's "nappies" on the clothes line because they soon became covered with a layer of dust. The houses and trees next to these factories are smeared with cement dust. One can almost see a "white Christmas" in midsummer. The effect of these conditions on the health of persons living in the area is a matter on which medical opinion cannot speak with direct authority. Subject to this, there is no doubt that a considerable amount of anxiety and worry is engendered in the minds of housewives who have to fight valiantly against these extraordinary and difficult conditions.
The question therefore arises: how can this evil be avoided? I must tell the House it can be avoided, and avoided completely. A book published in 1934 by the works superintendent of the Associated Portland Cement Company, Mr. A. C. Davies, which I believe to be a standard textbook on portland cement, describes three main methods of avoiding this nuisance. It is interesting to note, with reference to the most efficient method of electrostatic precipitation, that this was first described in detail in the design of Cottrell in 1911. It is of further interest that the physics experiment which suggested the development of an electrostatic precipitator was started as long ago as 1824, the year that the Aston patent for Portland cement was filed. We had to wait over a hundred years in the course of industrial development before industry thought it worth while to develop a really efficient method of doing away with this cement dust nuisance.
The question arises why these cement monopolies have not taken adequate steps to remedy these nuisances. The answer is not far to seek. There is no doubt that the capital outlay in respect of these plants for dealing with cement dust, is fairly substantial, and the running costs are by no means insignificant. We arrive at this deduction, that the making of bigger and fatter profits, which is the be-all and end-all of the existence of the cement combines, is carried on with complete disregard for the public, and for the common law duties of the combines not to create any public nuisance. For instance, as far as my constituency is concerned, it was almost ancient history when the Thurrock urban district council came into being, in 1936, and it was one of the council's first tasks to consider this question of the public nuisance caused in Thurrock.
From then onwards, representations have been made at intervals by the inhabitants to the council, and by the council to the representatives of the cement industry. In 1938, in the case of the Tunnel Cement Works, there were certain kilns in operation, and as far as kilns 4 and 5 were concerned there was only one electrostatic precipitator between them. Kilns 1, 2 and 3 were pumping poison into the atmosphere of Thurrock with complete disregard for the health and convenience of the public. In 1948, we find, with respect to the same works, that kilns 1 to 3 are still without electrostatic precipitators.
Before the war the cement industry had no excuses about the shortage of steel; they had no excuse about difficulties of getting apparatus. Their only real excuse was that they were too stingey to spend money to safeguard the public from this nuisance. Today, under the pressure of the urban district councils on both sides of the Thames, councils which are under Labour jurisdiction, the cement companies have suddenly decided to do everything they can to remedy this nuisance. But of course, there is a snag in this apparent readiness; they put the blame on the Government and say that they cannot get the necessary steel. It is interesting to note that they should have waited until there was a Labour Government and they could make these excuses, when before the war they could have remedied the nuisance.
I know that the Minister will say that we must have regard to the shortage of steel and to the necessity of increasing production in the interest of the export drive, but I would say to him that, as far as this nuisance is concerned, I am confident, in the light of my researches and with such knowledge of the law as I possess, that the cement companies are guilty of a public nuisance. I am confident that any of the local authorities concerned could take civil proceedings in order to counteract this nuisance, and, in this connection, it is interesting to note that His Majesty's judges have ruled that it is no defence to a charge of this nature to say that the nuisance arises from the carrying on of a trade beneficial to the community, and that the nuisance is less than the advantage from the trade.
I submit that the Government ought not to say, as I fear may be said, that we are passing through a difficult period and that, on the whole, it is better that production should carry on in its present form rather than that there should be some temporary hold-up caused by the allocation of steel for the manufacture of the necessary equipment. In a sense, if the Government took up that attitude, they would be aiding and abetting the commission of a public nuisance, and I sincerely hope they will avoid that conclusion.
Just one further word on the question of exports. A tremendous amount of cement is being exported, and if the allocation of steel for this plant would necessarily remove from the sphere of exports a corresponding amount of goods, having regard to the fact that cement is one of our priority exports, this amount of steel could surely be well allowed. I ask my hon. Friend to say that he will do all he can in this matter—a matter affecting thousands of people residing on both sides of the Thames.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Dodds: I am grateful for the fact that my hon. Friend has included in his damning indictment "people on both sides of the Thames." I speak for the Kentish side of the river, where for more than 20 years the residents have had to put up with this scourge. It is time that effective action was taken. Kent is referred to as the "Garden of England" but only too often, and par-


ticularly during the summer months, the whole countryside is covered by a layer of grey cement dust. I well remember last summer that the people throughout the country had the benefit of an excellent summer, but in Kent—and I am sure it must have been the same in Thurrock—everything was covered by this cement dust. There was to be seen cement dust everywhere. Windows in the houses had to be closed because of the fact that the housewife had a terrific job with the dust which was coming in when the windows were open.
Now, it is rather interesting to note that an investigating committee which has been formed of representatives of the local authorities have met representatives of the cement works in the Dartford district, and they were specifically informed that the policy of the cement works was to control this dust nuisance but that this has been seriously interfered with because they cannot get the machinery necessary for the task. I few days ago, at a public inquiry in Lavington, in Wiltshire, where the cement people were making application to go ahead with some works in that beauty spot, it was mentioned that if approval were given, machinery would be introduced which would completely obviate the cement dust nuisance in the district. We in the Dartford district feel that if that is correct, we have had for a long time, and are continuing to have, a very raw deal indeed, and we look to the Parliamentary Secretary to inform his right hon. Friend that, so far as the social work and the great activities of the Ministry are concerned, it can have little effect in Kent unless this dust is dealt with. We hope that some statement will be made tonight of the steps to be taken to ensure that this scourge will not last for one day longer than is necessary.

12.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): My hon. Friend has drawn attention to what, it will be admitted, is an extremely difficult problem, and I would not seek to minimise it in any way. Dust is a very great evil, and I am sure that to those who live in these areas it must be highly annoying. I would not want it to be thought however that there was any evidence to support the view that cement chimney dust causes a direct danger to health. My hon. Friend the Member for

Thurrock (Mr. Solley) who started this discussion tonight, suggested that there was a doubt, but there is no doubt whatever that cement chimney dust—which, let me make it plain, is not cement, but fine particles of clay and dust which come out of the kilns—does not have a direct effect on health. That does not mean that it is not annoying in a hundred and one ways, but I do not want to be alarmist about it.
We cannot be indifferent to the economic aspects of this question. The works in the region produce one-half of the cement made in Britain-4,500,000 tons a year. There is no comparable region in the world. By far the largest export of cement comes from this area. Therefore, it is not, so I am advised by my colleagues, possible to let up in production because of the terrific need we have for cement both at home and overseas.
May I now turn to the aspects of this question which concern my Department? The law relating to cement works says that the owner shall use all practicable means of preventing the escape of fumes, and these words have reference not only to the erection and maintenance of appliances but also to the proper supervision and use of them. Cement works have to be registered with my Ministry, but it is only since 1935 that such works were added to the schedule of the Alkali Acts, and since then new works have had to have the best appliances from the start, and existing works have had to provide such appliances. We have special inspectors in the Department concerned with all the works under the Alkali Orders, and they are in the closest touch with all the firms. In anticipation of the discussion tonight, I spent part of this morning talking about the question with them, and I hope in due course to go and see the whole thing for myself. I would have gone today, but in the time available it was not possible for me to get away.
I would like to say, in justice and fairness, that in our experience the managers of the cement undertakings in this area are willing to co-operate not only in the field where we have statutory control, the high-level emission of dust, but in the field of low-level emission of dust where we have no powers at all. I do not think that, in fact, from the time we had


statutory powers, their record is open to very much criticism. After the cement works were put under this order in this area, that is, from 1935 to the outbreak of war, we got 18 electrical precipitation appliances in operation. In those days plants cost something like £30,000 or £40,000, and over that period, although things were not wholly satisfactory, there was considerable progress. But for the war we should, by the exercise of our powers, have got the Thames-side cement industry into the right position in relation to prevention plants. The war knocked that on the head, and there is a quite genuine difficulty at present in getting delivery of the plant.
I do not need to talk about the competing demands for steel for all the various purposes essential to our economic survival. I would not deny that it is easy for me departmentally to make an extremely good case for steel for certain purposes, including purposes of this kind and for electrical precipitation units, but the fact remains that when the allocation of steel is made, and all the other competing claims taken into consideration, then the allocation just does not permit, within the bulk allocations, anything but a quite small output of this type of plant.
Especially in the light of what I have heard tonight, I will certainly do all I can to push forward the production of precipitation plants, but I would not want to mislead anyone on that point, because the allocation of steel is so limited that what it might be open to me to do is also limited, and until we get an improvement in the steel position I am not very hopeful of our being able to do anything very rapid. I have a list of what is being done at present. Some of the plants in this area have, in fact, got precipitation plants in process of erection, others have plants being overhauled because

they have got badly "out of trim" during the war, and others have got precipitation plants on order.
I can assure hon. Members that we shall, through our alkali inspectors, do what we can to get a move on here, but I would say that our major difficulties are in the supply of steel, and not difficulties at the present time on the part of any of the cement firms. Although our discussion has largely been concerned with the high-level emissions which cause widespread troubles, we have made considerable progress since the war in dealing with low-level emissions where the problem is localized in character, and where we are not held up in the same way by shortages of materials. There may be one or two points I have not dealt with, but I have taken note of all that has been said in this discussion, and shall take a further opportunity of going into the matter with my advisers.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Pritt: It seems to me that the Minister has disclosed rather a serious position and one in which he might be able to bring forward some stronger case for the allocation of steel for this purpose. He is admitting and condoning a position in which a continuous series of public nuisances is being caused by an industry which is no doubt doing a very useful task. But if the local authorities were doing this duty, the problem would be solved in a few months because, having obtained an injunction, these factories could be shut down. If an injunction were obtained, the court might perhaps suspend its operation while someone got busy making this plant.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Twelve o' Clock.